|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 18 new of 32 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 15 of 32:
| 
Jun 26 02:25 UTC 2003 |
resp:13 you're a fw there, right, Sapna?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 16 of 32:
|
Jun 26 02:27 UTC 2003 |
Yes, she is.
I just had occasion to stop by the consumer conference. Well worth a visit.
You'll find information on how to shop for just about anything, and
recommendations for the rest.
|
gregb
|
|
response 17 of 32:
|
Jun 27 14:40 UTC 2003 |
What does "FW" stand for?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 18 of 32:
|
Jun 27 14:50 UTC 2003 |
"Fair Witness", the person responsible for a conference (for certain values
of "responsible").
|
gregb
|
|
response 19 of 32:
|
Jun 27 14:54 UTC 2003 |
Isn't the same as a Moderator?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 20 of 32:
|
Jun 27 15:04 UTC 2003 |
Not really, but I guess the concept is similar. The moderator of a debate
or panel discussion has a bit more power than a fair witness of a conference,
and the moderator of an e-mail list has a lot more control than a fair witness
of a conference.
In most cases, the fair witness links items between conferences, freezes (or
otherwise removes) duplicate items or items not germane to the conference,
subject to the mores of the particular conference. The fair witness is also
the person to contact with specific questions about the operation of the
conference.
|
gregb
|
|
response 21 of 32:
|
Jun 27 15:14 UTC 2003 |
So how is this different from a Moderator's duties/abilities?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 32:
|
Jun 27 16:05 UTC 2003 |
It's a Heinlein groupie thing. See http://freerepublic.com/~fairwitness/
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 23 of 32:
|
Jun 27 17:07 UTC 2003 |
A moderator would be able to steer the discussion and slap people's
wrists when they get out of line. A fw has much less responsibility.
From what I've learnt, you're not allowed to delete stuff that could
be disruptive to the community. Basically your hands are tied.
|
mdw
|
|
response 24 of 32:
|
Jun 27 17:24 UTC 2003 |
Most of the powers that people think moderators ought to have turn out
to be really bad solutions in terms of social dynamics. "Fairwitness"
was my attempt to defuse this tendency. In Confer they were called
"organizers", and there were occasional flame fests related to this or
that abuse or perceived abuse. On the well, they're called "hosts". In
the BBS world, a common term was "sysop". A popular newspeak term for
ftf meetings is "facilitator".
|
jazz
|
|
response 25 of 32:
|
Jun 27 20:57 UTC 2003 |
The Usenet model of moderated and unmoderated discussion groups works
out pretty well; it seems that many people are irked by percieved moderator
abuse, but not enough to deal with unmoderated garbage, and many people
are irked by unmoderated garbage, but not enough to institute moderators.
There are a lot of reasons why, socially, percieved abuse tends to get way
out of hand, but that's probably outside the scope of this discussion.
|
gull
|
|
response 26 of 32:
|
Jun 27 21:08 UTC 2003 |
Generally I think of a "moderator" as someone who approves or rejects
posts before they appear publicly. A Picospan/Backtalk fairwitness
doesn't have that ability.
|
mdw
|
|
response 27 of 32:
|
Jun 27 21:37 UTC 2003 |
Usenet has different scaling issues, and different social problems.
|
jazz
|
|
response 28 of 32:
|
Jun 27 21:40 UTC 2003 |
Marcus: We're in complete agreement here. I re-read my post, and
realised that it might be construed as criticism; it wasn't meant to be
criticism, but rather a comment about a system that worked well for its'
niche.
|
sabre
|
|
response 29 of 32:
|
Jul 10 16:44 UTC 2003 |
Do you expect these morons to actually have anything useful to say except for
the vain babbling that takes place here? These shitdick asshats should be
confined to agora. Thier senseless rambling is best posted here.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 30 of 32:
|
Jul 11 01:07 UTC 2003 |
Wanna-be iconoclast=0
|
sabre
|
|
response 31 of 32:
|
Jul 11 17:04 UTC 2003 |
jaklumen = a wanna-be thinker...you are so cliche.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 32 of 32:
|
Jul 12 03:58 UTC 2003 |
Look who's talkin'.
|