Quote:
So my thought is that you aren't going quite far enough with this anarchy thing.
Banning is a form of minimal state saying, "You are no longer welcome." So I honestly think banning should not be possible at all.
On the topic of deletions, I think that can be okay too. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit anything with only a nominal level of protections to maintain a degree of factual consistency. However, since we are talking discussion, I think we are okay. So don't allow deletions either, unless in some sort of automated way to keep clutter down (I.E. Abandoned threads) It would probably really help to have a weekly auto-prune.
With editing, my only concern is that there be some evidence of editing. Sure, let A edit out something wrong or offensive in B's post, but make sure the world know's that A edited the post so that it is not ascribed to B directly.
|
Exactly! I really don't think you need to impose much order at all. If given adequate time and such, the forum will find order on its own.
I'd like to add that I think the notion that you could 'ban' anyone from an anonymous forum on the internet is pretty naive anyway. So, no one bans and no one deletes. Allow everything else just make the process transparent.
Phase II...sounds horrible. The 'good' can do just as much damage as the 'bad.' Point systems? Reputations? It will only give rise to a board run by a clique comprised of members with 'good reputations.' Clique members, who have and will continue to, reward each other (you know, they need help doing the 'right' thing) until they control the top 50% (or whatever). The forum will turn into a wasteland of non-offensive, homogenous threads because the voices of dissent have been silenced by the clique's ability to delete the 'inappropriate' and ban indiscriminantly.
Phase I sounds interesting. Phase II sounds too much like high school yearbook committee to me.