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?

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?

response 4 of 133:

May 2 02:01 UTC 2006

1. 1) Do this as a test, running it alongside the existing system.

2. 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. 3) Allow each item's creator/moderator three powers not available in the current system:
   1. 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.
   2. b) Disallow display of full names in response headings (loginid only)
   3. 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.

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. 

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?