Halx

Ok, I'm looking for input in 2 areas. First, let me explain the situation:

An internet forum, much like the TFP, is set up and users are invited to participate. The forum is set up to model anarchy. All users are given equal, extremely liberal rights; editing, deleting, banning, opening, closing, creating... anything. There will be no rules for posting.. anything goes. The only thing that will matter will be how the users use their freedom.

So, with that in mind; how do you think it will work out?

Also, do you think there should be any limits/freedoms to the abilities of forum members that would better shape an anarchy model? Example: Is the ability to ban other users at will too extreme to fit the anarchy model, or is it perfectly in line?

I'm thinking of setting something like this up. I'd be interested in seeing how it goes.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

maleficent

Just because someone CAN do something, doesn't always mean that they will...

For total anarchy to rein.. the inmates probably need to run the asylum... that includes giving them the weapons necessary.

I would imagine it would get pretty frustrating pretty quickly and without some sense of order... people wouldn't want to play for long...

It'd be an interesting experiment...

__________________

Glory's Sun

Hmm. Interesting

Anarchy: Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

So, if you have any purpose at all with this, you've failed already. :shrug:

I don't really know about the banning for all members. I mean it seems like a pretty true anarchist style, considering anarchy is just political confusion and lawlessness... how long before everyone but one is banned? Will someone just walk in and ban everyone from the start?? Or will we see a natural selection of sorts where the Estrong survive and the Eweak fail?

Hell, go for it. I want to see what carnage ensues.

Willravel

It's definately a good idea. I'm not sure how it would turn out, as that would depent almost exclusively on who joins. If those of the calibur I've seen of TFP were to join, I could see this as a very important experiement in the social processes of an anarchy. I've never seen anarchy in action before (except on Fox), and this would give someone a front row seat, while at the same time having the limitation of it simply being an internet forum (not that it's a small thing to be a forum online). If you make this, please link it. I'd love to join.
Limitations should simply be in place to prevent the forum from leaking into the real world. No personal information should be put on the forum at all. In an anarchy more often than not one's emotional responses are seen more often than normal, and emotional responses can sometimes lead to violence. Other than that, no illegal content (anything that breaks national or international internet law).

This should be facinating.

Redlemon

Let's refer to this board as AFP, "Anarchic Forum Project", just to make the discussion easier.

Someone on AFP would get banned. That person would take it harshly and find a way back onto the board, and begin mass-banning others. Remaining users would try to sort out the damage. However, some users caught in the collateral cross-fire a few times would get tired of the whole thing and leave AFP for good. I think it would be hard to maintain enough dedicated users to keep it interesting.

My biggest concern with AFP would be that grudges created there would filter back to TFP and damage the trust that we have here.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Glory's Sun

then how about a rule where you can't use your TFP name on the other board? then it's somewhat annoymous

maleficent

to a point - personalities come out and writing styles for some people - make them easy to pick out...

__________________

Glory's Sun

That's true, but I wonder how noticable it would be with all the (supposed) chaos abounding.

CSflim

Take a look at pretty much any unmoderated forum on the net. Any one that is remotely big is unreadable garbage.

For instance, the imdb forums could be fantastic - a fan of a movie? Want to discuss it in depth with other fans? Sounds great. In reality each board is just thread after thread of immature pointless flaming. Even when someone tries to start a genuinely interesting thread, it degerates into banal crap after about half a dozen posts.


So unmoderated forums don't really work so well in my opinion. Not all are as bad as imdb, but on pretty much all unmoderated boards I've seen the "signal to noise ratio" is pretty poor.

Your "Anarchy" model is not quite the same as unmoderated. It is similar, but it goes much further. I imagine that it wouldn't be long before some jackass decides to delete all posts he/she disagrees with, or bans everyone he/she dislikes. Then there would be retaliation. Soon all posts would be deleted, and every account banned. Not so much fun.

But perhaps there is a middle ground between standard "moderated" and "unmoderated"/"anarchic" forums? For instance digg.com is pretty much self moderated. Like a thread? "Digg it" to increase it's visibility. If a threads gets enough diggs, it gets moved to a more prominent section of the site. This way, the majority of the users don't have to deal with spam, reposts, and all the other crap. Find someone trolling? Vote his post "thumbs down". If a user gets a net vote of minus five, the post is hidden from the thread unless it is explicity viewed.

This has some nice features. No spam, no trolling, but without explicit moderators. But it has problems too. Mainly that it punishes the posting of unpopular opinions. The "thumbs up/down" feature is often used to vote down, not just spam/trolling, but also just things that people disagree with. Go ahead and try to suggest that maybe, just maybe rapant music and film piracy isn't necessarily the most wonderful thing in the world. Your post will disappear. Try to suggest the sometimes commerical software might have an occasional slight advantage over open source software...bye bye post.

I suspect that a model such as this can be improved with further modifications.


Ok, I'll just wrap it up by saying that, no I don't think the anarachy model would work out so well. But I do think that there is plenty of room for innovation in this area, and that there are plenty of possibilites out there, including models which dispense with the idea of appointed moderators. But I suspect the really good ones would resemble democracy more than anarchy.

__________________

aberkok

This is difficult to predict. I think Redlemon's predictions might come true but they seem like worst case scenarios.

I'd be interested to see the results. The closest thing I can think of in real life is walking into a conversation people are already having and shouting "This is over!!" Unlikely. Although we can predict that there will be bannination, we need to see what the reactions will be. Will there be extreme retaliation? Let's see.

If there is an understanding, upon joining, that it's an anarchic e-society, perhaps people will be more interested in controlling their ability to ban.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

eribrav

The problem is there will be no differentiating the weak from the strong, if anyone can electronically kill (read:ban) anyone else. It would be too easy for a malcontent or two (note I said nothing about other mals.... ) to ruin the whole thing.

maleficent

there would still be weak vs strong - though not necessarily those words - it doesn't require physical strength to push the ban button... it's more about whether people have the "guts" to push the button...

it's be interestint to see if with banning -there was a time limit on it - and you knew who banned you ... once you knew that person banned you - when you recover - do you retaliate... and how? ban back? or something more insidious?

__________________

CSflim

I would be wary about the relationship between TFP and AFP, but for a different reason. Namely that it would tamper with the "purity" of the experiment. People would act in a different way, because they already know the people involved. For one thing, they might have an emotional reaction towards them one way or the other. For another, people are likely to act differently knowing that they are going to return to the TFP and will interact further there.

So, if for instance the AFP was sucessful, how would we tell the difference between:
1. Look at this sucessful forum! See what can be achieved with an anarchy model!
vs
2. Look at this sucessful forum! Notice how the strong respectful relationships forged in the TFP have survived under the pressure of an onslaught of anarchy!

__________________

Halx

Imagine me setting up this board. I carefully set up permissions so everyone has these powers. I make the first post; it is titled "steal this post." It explains the site and it notes very clearly that I can be banned by YOU and this post can be thrown into oblivion with just a few clicks of the mouse. The post goes on to explain that everyone is given power and that the entire board is wide open. You can post anything you want because you have every freedom. At your fingertips is the ability to create, along with everyone else, something great. Will you use your power to help it grow, or will you destroy it?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

maleficent

I think most people would intend to help it grow- -but intentions are funny things sometimes... one person's great idea could cause the destruction of the board...

__________________

Charlatan

I would think that giving the power to ban indiscriminantly would not be a good thing.

I would rather see it set up like a meritocracy where users can give "good" points or "bad" points to other users based on what the users have posted. A flame would lead to an accumulation of "bad" points depending on how it is received and reviewed by the other users. A good post would generate "good" points and a me too type of post would generate no points.

Accumulate enough negative points and you start to get banned. First time your balance of "good" is, say, 50% lower than your "bad" you get a week long ban. The next time more time off, and so on. Something like that anyway.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Glory's Sun

even with the points system it really wouldn't be that hard to abuse it. When someone was approaching the banning levels people could easily just press the "bad" points just to get the person out for a bit. You would still have some people who would come in and start giving everyone "bad" points and then working from there. So, in time it would turn into an anarchist state anyway. /me thinks

:shrug:

Halx

It's a funny line to walk. Being able to ban without care is 'too much' however, instituting reputation is defeating the purpose.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Charlatan

Yes. I can see that, Gucci.

BUT... what if we all could see who was doing what? If someone was going around picking on users and giving an inordinate number of negative points for no reason, people would give them a lot of negative points in turn.

The person getting picked on might also get a lot of sympathy "good" points which would off set the "bad" ones.

It would take a while to weed out the bad eggs.

Here's a thought. Perhaps you do not get the power of giving points until you have earned a significant number of "good" points. One could assume that those who have earned enough good points would be responsible enough with power.

A new user would then have a time to learn how the board works before taking part as a full user.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Halx

Well, I'm visualizing this in my head. I see idealogical Anarchy as a sort of neutrality and balance. A delicate perch between chaos and order. When you're suggesting is a bias toward order, making it harder for chaos to develop. That would defeat the concept.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Glory's Sun

I'm with Hal. This really kinda defeats the purpose of setting up an anarchy board. Now I know you said you'd rather have it set up as a different type, but that's similar to what we have here now. The only difference is we have a political (mods/admins) party that holds the power. In your model, Cliques would abound and certain cliques would destroy other ones and try to gain the power. While that would in fact be an interesting study, I think the Anarchist model would be a more interesting model to begin with; especially considering the scope of relations on TFP. I'd like to see if people carry the same attitudes and traits as they do on here.. or if they go ape-shit and try to destroy everything in sight. I'd also like to see who isn't "scared" on the Anarchist Project. Some who may be a bit leery as to what they say here (for whatever reason) may in fact pack quite a punch.

CSflim

Perhaps you could do the following:

The forum starts out as you described. Except that the very rules that it operates on can be modified - like an open source forum which can be modified on the fly. Initially there are a number of rules set up about how the system can be modified: say, a modification in proposed. A poll opens for a week. When the poll closes, if it got higher than 50% approval, the change goes ahead. The rules describing the modification process are of course, also candidates for modification.

__________________

Glory's Sun

Oh yeah by the way, I have dibs on the username Halx.


:P

Charlatan

I honestly don't believe that human nature will ever allow for that kind of system. There will always be someone who wants to graft the system and cause shit.

Just visit any unmoderated board. Heck visit the Politics board.

The key, in my mind, is to give users a set of tools to run the show. The meritocracy I have suggested has order but it also has an element of chaos. If you want to be a shit disturber you can do this too.

Frankly, I don't want to participate in an unmoderated board. That's why I make TFP home.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Willravel

Count me in 100%. While I do have aprehension, not unlike that of Charlatan, my sense of curiosity is setting off fireworks in my brain. I have to see what happens. I wonder if I'm curious about the sociological aspect, or if I just like watching a train wreak?

BigBen

Yes, but in an Internet setting, there is no consequences to the actions of the abuser.

In an anarchic physical environment, every participant must weigh the option that another can cause them PHYSICAL harm. Even in anarchy, their behaviour is modified.

Listen. If there are no laws, what is stopping me from shooting someone in the face? Nothing. Therefore, I must take steps to ensure that I don't get shot in the face. See? My behaviour is moderated, out of necessity.

Not so on the internet. What is stopping me from fucking the site over? Nothing. There is no consequence in my actions. I therefore reach into the pit of humanity and bring out the most disturbing parts of my id. I let them breathe. I post bestiality, scat and snuf. People ban me, but not before I have fucked with their minds.

I dunno. I think there should be one rule: No banning. there could be ignore buttons galore, though...

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

Halx

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Charlatan

Ben, you have made concrete that thing I couldn't get my finger on... consequences. It's just the Internet, who gives a fuck! This is what runs rife through unmoderated sites.

The meritocracy provides concrete consequences to your actions.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Halx

Ok, consequences.

You're right, there is no way to develop consequences. The worst I can think of is retaliation. It would be tough to pin down anyone due to the ability to register many accounts.

A design flaw... yes. But is it a gamebreaker?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Willravel

You could make it a democratic experiment by having the community vote and decide on consequences.

Although that kinda defeats the purpous.

CSflim

Well, it's all down to the clientelle. I suspect that this could work, if it was kept small and the majority of the members found it from tfp. The people we've got here are just the mature, intelligent, respectful types that would be required to make something like this work. But given wider exposure - I doubt it.

I mean, you could probably get exposure for an "anything goes" forum, as it's something quite different. Imagine say that it got posted on slashdot or fark or some other high traffic website. I suspect it wouldn't be long before oodles of jackassery emerged.

Just bear in mind that there are actual trolling groups, who put in a lot of time and effort for the sole purpose of fucking things up on other forums/communities. I imagine that an anarchy forum such as this would be a dream come true for them, see Gay Nigger Association of America

__________________

Charlatan

I see it as a gamebreaker. I would have thought this was a great idea and totally doable when I was in my early 20s. I think I have just become too jaded.

Read up on the history of most communes. Most of them have ended in failure. While anarchy is a great goal to aim for, I see it like I see most absolutes. Unattainable. They all need some sort of tinkering to make them work... this is always to account for human nature. Human nature is a messy thing.

In the end, anarchy might work but it would be a lot of work and there would be little time left over to use the forum for anything but maintaining "the system". In the end, I predict it will grow boring because it will be boring.

I could be wrong though.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

CaliLivChick

I like the idea of people being able to see who has done what to whom. That way, if you ban my friend, I know it was you, and I can ban you. Ah, the joys of retaliation.

However, my theory is it would eventually turn out like high school: one giant popularity contest.

__________________
Don't trust anything that can bleed for a week and not die. Oh wait, that's me... nevermind... you can trust me.

cellophanedeity

I think it could work if we were to take the forum we have now and turn it into AFP.

The problem with starting fresh is the idea of how anonymous the internet is, and how anonymity can create carelessness. If we want this to be similar in type to a "real world" model of anarchy, then we must take into account that people aren't entirely anonymous in meatspace.

We all would start with equal and total power, but our current "social positions" among eachother remain the same. Halx would be Halx, cellophanedeity would be cellophanedeity, and such. That way, if someone is banned, then the community knows who did it, and is able to find out why, if they're interested. Also, there's no reason to believe that anarchy begins as a meeting of equals with equal status. I believe that just a state of lawlessness is enough to be considered anarchy. (And whoever said that anarchy by definition isn't compatable with order is mixing anarchy and chaos, which is very easy to do!)

It would be interesting to see how things would progress from there. I have a feeling that a certain sort of Social Contract would form, in which we would put up with certain people that we don't particularly care for, but are not harmful in order to keep the peace.

Say for instance that I don't like Maleficent (I really do! I'm just using her as an example!! <3) and I have the power to ban her. I also know that a larger group of other people do like Mal, and would be upset if I banned her. In order to keep the peace and my place in the social sphere here, I would settle with my negative feelings.

I also suspect that we would develop a sort of policing method, in which certain, more socially powerful, people take it upon themselves to sort out the good and bad guys. And yes, this would be a popularity contest. Most things are anyway, even if we pretend they're not.

And from there, the "police" would develop rules to avoid arguments within eachother, then the other people would develop rules to keep the police from being in total power of them, and then we would be back a a democracy and then back where we are, and while it's not perfect, we do it to get along.

Cynthetiq

Lord of the Flies somehow comes to mind...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

maleficent

makes a mental note....

I dont think those three people would be that upset - just show 'em pictures of you in your maple leaf skivvies and they'd make you queen

__________________

cellophanedeity

Aww Mal, you know I love ya! ^_^

pan6467

It's a great concept, but people, imho, like order and there are some who love power. IMHO, within days you would see people wanting a leader and wanting to set up a form of governing body.

Within a month you would have TFP part 2, just maybe with different mods and perhaps with fewer freedoms.

Also, another wrench is the inevitable bad feelings, rivalries and negatives that would spill over into here.

All that said, I'd be up for the experiment.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ASU2003

Look at the Yahoo message boards.

It is basically anonymous, and what people are really thinking comes out.

They are racist, hate fat people, gays suck, stupid people suck, Bush is evil, every hot girl wants to have sex with them, etc...

If it was truly anonymous, what would happen if child porn got posted there. In Anarchy, it's not illegal. There are no laws. People would create multiple accounts in case one got banned, and ban everyone else and say negative stupid things about one another.

Anarchy only works in nature. The birds have no laws, there are no fish in prison. It is survival of the fittest. Humans are intelligent and have emotions (revenge/jealousy/lust ...), which makes anarchy not work very well.

If there were only a few random people and they sort of know each other, but never team up on one person, it might be ok. But, a true anarchy message board would go nowhere if there wasn't some kind of goal and equality within the members.

ratbastid

Yeah, I think it is. Not that this isn't a very interesting idea... but anarchy on the internet will inevitably lead to more noise and less signal.

Look: let's say I come across your "steal this post" post. You know the first thing I would do? Delete that post and ban you, just to see if it was true. I'm a software guy at heart, and my instinct is going to be to test the system.

But I'm not accountable for that, and you know it. And you, being a human being, get pissed off that you're now banned, you log in as Hal2, you ban me. I come back as ratbastid2 and ban your second account, and lock out your IP address. You get friends to come and flame me for a while, then ban me. And then the forum looks an awful lot like the hundreds of undermoderated trollfests already out there on the internets.

Ben nailed it: in meatspace anarchy, there are consequences to your actions. You're a meat body with a physical location, and there are things that can be physically done to hold you accountable for your actions. That's the only thing that might make it work.