Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
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. 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.
|
Do really think that members are going to 'down-vote' those at the top simply because they aren't 'acting in the spirit of the community?' I imagine they'll act on everything but...
The reason moderation (at least in the context of online forums) works at all, in my opinion, is because there is a level of autonomy a moderator enjoys that separates him/her from the whimsy of the general public. A level of autonomy that just can't be expected if you're under constant evaluation from those that you 'rule.'
If populism is the preferred '-ism,' then measures should be taken to ensure that the means to elect our 'ruling' class favor the notions of true election rather than those employed at American Idol.
All that aside, I just don't see how Phase II would resemble anything other than 'TFP redux.' If the point of the experiment is to create a quasi-anachronistic forum, then it would seem that the fewer rules there are, the closer the forum would be to its ideal.