Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Martian · 06-26-2006, 02:55 AM

guthmund: Maybe I'm just not cynical enough, but I disagree with your assessment of "phase II". If I'm understanding the whole thing correctly, there is nothing given that cannot be removed; that is to say, someone who gets up-voted (for want of a better term) can also be down-voted. The part about this that is interesting to me is that it creates a self-moderating community. If, at any point, the majority feels that those at the top are not acting in the spirit of the community, said folks may be removed and/or replaced. If it does turn into a non-offensive, family friendly hug-fest, it would be a safe assumption that this is representative of what those present are looking for in a forum. That's just as interesting a comment as any that might be made through an anarchistic forum.

Unmoderated or self-moderated forums as presented here are not a new concept. Mind you, I'm not saying I'm totally against the idea of trying it or that it will never work. I'm just skeptical that without some sort of balances to the power given to the average Joe, it could very quickly become very chaotic.

Another of the dozens of hypotheticals that can be made. Let's say I, as a non-user of TFP and a random internet denizen, stumble across this. I might register and start banning and/or deleting as much as I can. That may seem alarmist, but I don't think it is; after all, an outsider's attitude coming in like that may well be "it's not my forum." There's no accountability, there's no consequences.

Maybe what might be more practical, a phase 1.5 if you will - base a user's abilities on either time or post count. It would be a bit like the distinction between rookies and full member here on TFP - we restrict access until the user invests something into the forum, creating a vested interest for said user. The key difference, of course, is that instead of basing it on a panel-type review, as we do here, we'd want it based on something arbitrary. I reckon having one person or group of people doling out the abilities is against the spirit of the venture, but maybe restricting those abilities to those who show real interest isn't.

06-26-2006, 02:55 AM	#80 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	guthmund: Maybe I'm just not cynical enough, but I disagree with your assessment of "phase II". If I'm understanding the whole thing correctly, there is nothing given that cannot be removed; that is to say, someone who gets up-voted (for want of a better term) can also be down-voted. The part about this that is interesting to me is that it creates a self-moderating community. If, at any point, the majority feels that those at the top are not acting in the spirit of the community, said folks may be removed and/or replaced. If it does turn into a non-offensive, family friendly hug-fest, it would be a safe assumption that this is representative of what those present are looking for in a forum. That's just as interesting a comment as any that might be made through an anarchistic forum. Unmoderated or self-moderated forums as presented here are not a new concept. Mind you, I'm not saying I'm totally against the idea of trying it or that it will never work. I'm just skeptical that without some sort of balances to the power given to the average Joe, it could very quickly become very chaotic. Another of the dozens of hypotheticals that can be made. Let's say I, as a non-user of TFP and a random internet denizen, stumble across this. I might register and start banning and/or deleting as much as I can. That may seem alarmist, but I don't think it is; after all, an outsider's attitude coming in like that may well be "it's not my forum." There's no accountability, there's no consequences. Maybe what might be more practical, a phase 1.5 if you will - base a user's abilities on either time or post count. It would be a bit like the distinction between rookies and full member here on TFP - we restrict access until the user invests something into the forum, creating a vested interest for said user. The key difference, of course, is that instead of basing it on a panel-type review, as we do here, we'd want it based on something arbitrary. I reckon having one person or group of people doling out the abilities is against the spirit of the venture, but maybe restricting those abilities to those who show real interest isn't. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame