|
|
| Author |
Message |
slynne
|
|
Moderated Conferences?
| 
May 1 23:26 UTC 2006 |
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. |
cyklone
|
|
response 1 of 133:
|
May 1 23:38 UTC 2006 |
Ditch the Blue Ribbon!
|
mcnally
|
|
response 2 of 133:
|
May 2 00:23 UTC 2006 |
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?
|
other
|
|
response 3 of 133:
|
May 2 01:58 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 4 of 133:
|
May 2 02:01 UTC 2006 |
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:
- 1) Do this as a test, running it alongside the existing system.
- 2) Set it up so that people joining bbs for the first time are
automatically joined into Agora and the test conference, instead of only
Agora. This should boost awareness of and participation in the test.
- 3) Allow each item's creator/moderator three powers not available in
the current system:
- a) HIDE responses (not remove) so that they
are replaced with a link that any web viewer can click to read the
hidden response, and make the replacement text indicate that the item
was hidden by the user who posted the item and not by other means. For
telnet users, whatever commands currently display hidden responses could
be used to display responses hidden by this method.
- b) Disallow
display of full names in response headings (loginid only)
- c) Ban
specific users/loginids from FURTHER posting in the item, but have the
ban/unban command automatically enter a non-hideable response in the
item indicating the action and the affected loginid/s.
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.
|
scholar
|
|
response 5 of 133:
|
May 2 02:03 UTC 2006 |
and just who is going to do this?
|
slynne
|
|
response 6 of 133:
|
May 2 04:01 UTC 2006 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 7 of 133:
|
May 2 05:00 UTC 2006 |
It was the opinion of some board members that the quality of
conferencing has gone down.
Opinions are acceptable. Censorship is not.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 8 of 133:
|
May 2 05:15 UTC 2006 |
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?
|
scholar
|
|
response 9 of 133:
|
May 2 06:40 UTC 2006 |
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.
|
spooked
|
|
response 10 of 133:
|
May 2 09:11 UTC 2006 |
It's sad, though, when you are the only one laughing at you... usually a
sign you may not be that funny ;)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 11 of 133:
|
May 2 10:20 UTC 2006 |
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.
|
slynne
|
|
response 12 of 133:
|
May 2 12:55 UTC 2006 |
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.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 13 of 133:
|
May 2 13:31 UTC 2006 |
Like the Dave Parks Nice Conference?
|
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?
|