Tell Me What You Want

steveinbsas

Registered
Then we implement some form of collective moderation. I think it will be a good start. How it will be done practically depends on features available in the new software.
It will be interesting to see how the new software allows "collective" moderation. There are only two other website in which I have posted in the past ten years. One is facebook (where I don't post very often) and the other is galtsgulchonline, a website that was created to promote the film trilogy based on the novel "Atlas Shrugged" that was published in 1957.

The galtsgulchonline site has a format that uses a form of collective moderation by awarding points that can be added and/or subtracted by clicking on a thumbs up or thumbs down icon. If the tally reaches a certain level of negative points, the post is hidden from view but not deleted.

I am not at all fond of this system and neither do I like the fact that new comments never "bump" an old topic back to the top of the list. As a result, some great discussions have become "lost" to viewers and the site is dominated by external links to current news items.

To illustrate what I am referring to, here's a link to a topic I started four years ago:

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/6afb21/everyone-should-play-john-galtat-least-once
 

nikad

Registered
I have been posting here for a long time, I think that a short set of rules enforced by admin and maybe a couple of moderators should suffice, I think a related FB group would attract people as well. Just my 2 cents.
 
If you don't mind my saying so, most of the moderation suggestions I've seen here are subjective and subjectivity will almost inevitably lead to squabbling and resentment. I think there need to be moderators to perform the dull, boring, back-office tasks of confirming that a message conforms to previously defined standards and letting it through. Or rejecting it for one or more of those previously defined standards (and maybe emailing back a non-personal standard script to the author explaining the rejection?)

I subscribe to a moderated USENET newsgroup on the subject of UK law. There's no moderation on content but a post may be rejected for a number of reasons including being abusive to other posters, being potentially libellous or likely to be in contempt of court. So a patently wrong message such as "Murder is not a criminal offence" would still be allowed but "Murder is a criminal offence, you stupid dork" or "XYZ Corporation murders babies" or "We must lobby the jurors of the ABC murder trial and make sure they vote 'guilty'" would not. Regular posters get on well with each other and newcomers don't feel threatened and some interesting conversations - both deep and frivolous - take place.

If you are interested in the way this group works, take a look at http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html and click through to any of the links

If you want to see moderation at work in real time (subject to the time zone and the moderators actually being on line) try watching http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm
 

khairyexpat

Registered
If you don't mind my saying so, most of the moderation suggestions I've seen here are subjective and subjectivity will almost inevitably lead to squabbling and resentment. I think there need to be moderators to perform the dull, boring, back-office tasks of confirming that a message conforms to previously defined standards and letting it through. Or rejecting it for one or more of those previously defined standards (and maybe emailing back a non-personal standard script to the author explaining the rejection?)

I subscribe to a moderated USENET newsgroup on the subject of UK law. There's no moderation on content but a post may be rejected for a number of reasons including being abusive to other posters, being potentially libellous or likely to be in contempt of court. So a patently wrong message such as
"Murder is not a criminal offence" would still be allowed but
"Murder is a criminal offence, you stupid dork" or
"XYZ Corporation murders babies" or
"We must lobby the jurors of the ABC murder trial and make sure they vote 'guilty'" would not.
Regular posters get on well with each other and newcomers don't feel threatened and some interesting conversations - both deep and frivolous - take place.

If you are interested in the way this group works, take a look at http://www.usenet.or....moderated.html and click through to any of the links

If you want to see moderation at work in real time (subject to the time zone and the moderators actually being on line) try watching http://www.chiark.gr...~webstump/l.ulm
I pledge to abide by these stark examples as logically obvious RULES.
 

meddle

Registered
I've heard from ba expats who left this forum and moved to fb explain that it was solely because of the climate of negative and predatory posts here. They wanted the predatory behavior here to stop. Not saying they made a good decision, just explaining what they did and said.

If you want to encourage newcomers, the assessment (by moderators) of what is a predatory post has be made by and from the perspectives of newcomers. Long-term members in critiquing or attacking posts may have different standards and assumptions of intent from newcomers, leaving newcomers feeling that they have been personally attacked though their posts.
 

Bajo_cero2

Well-Known Member
I think that bulling should be moderated.
You might agree with me or not but I have first hand info regarding how not being deported and even I shared it for free I was continuoisly attacked by a bunch of idiots even all my legal predictions were shown to be true.
 
Top