Author
|
Topic: CoV rescue plan (Read 4683 times) |
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.78
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
CoV rescue plan
« on: 2002-09-25 11:43:08 » |
 |
Quote from: kharin on 2002-09-25 10:32:14
I wholeheartedly endorse what Jonathan has said. My suspicion is that what is likely to be needed is a general amnesty, followed by the development of a Virian rescue plan.
|
First, thanks to all who have supported and defended me, you have made these difficult times bearable.
I think Kharin is right, we need a rescue plan. What are our options? Do we need to analyze what went wrong before we can fix it? What kind of community do we want to (re)build? Do we need more structure, more rules?
Coincidentally the Extropians list is also undergoing a crisis. Some old timers are threatening to leave because they view the discussions degenerating into a cess pool, and they too are debating about what can be done. Should they ban certain topics or some posters? And, if so, would that be consistent with their espoused ideals? Difficult questions.
|
|
|
|
|
RavenBlack
Archon
Posts: 158
Reputation: 8.26
Rate RavenBlack
So very alive, and full of goo.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #1 on: 2002-09-25 12:13:25 » |
|
All that's needed is a rule of instant three week banning for anyone who thinks it's clever (note, while we can't know what people think, the judgement can be made based on their actions) to, during heated debate, interject childish wordplay. Now, I have nothing against childish wordplay in its proper place - either children, or fun - but using them as insults is clearly sound grounds for a permanent banning - three weeks would be lenient.
Many examples of the prose in question can be found from, unsurprisingly, pretty much any of the people who have been destructive and disruptive. Things like:
"The turds, er I mean words, spewing forth from..."
to pick one from recent memory (probably not an exact quote, but "turds, er I mean words" was certainly the gist).
Who shall be the judge? I don't think it matters. If rules such as this are established and posted as rules, the judgement is performed by the rule itself - it's pretty difficult to misjudge something like that. The only people who would complain about being banned for breaking the rules would be banned, so they'd be complaining to nobody. Perfect.
I know, you really had hoped for a pleasant anarchy, but these are people we're talking about. Benevolent dictatorship's the best you're going to get.
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.06
Rate JD
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #2 on: 2002-09-25 13:19:15 » |
|
Firstly David, sorry for not speaking up sooner. I was hoping for things to die down, but they did not.
As to the future, here are some preliminary thoughts:
1. We probably need to set some sort of guiding goal or meta-objective.
2. Let us establish some simple rules, and a mechanism for modifying them later.
3. We should adopt a code of conduct for debating interactions. Perhaps something like this:
http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/argument.html
4. In heated discussion a quorum can agree to a "heated mode". Heated mode is a more strict format of rules that need to be adhered to strictly. These rules can be bans on personal observations (insults) or a stylised way of presenting arguments (to deter flooding).
5. Every person has nominated referees. If two people are in conflict, and they share a referee, then that referee arbitrates the dispute.
More to follow..
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
|
Zloduska
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 113
Reputation: 8.08
Rate Zloduska
Handcuffs are for amateurs.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #3 on: 2002-09-25 16:21:27 » |
|
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2002-09-25 11:43:08
I think Kharin is right, we need a rescue plan. What are our options? Do we need to analyze what went wrong before we can fix it? What kind of community do we want to (re)build? Do we need more structure, more rules?
|
Okay, everyone is invited to our new apartment for a few rounds of Naked Olive Oil Twister, followed by a Shower Party. It helps if you have a stripper and all get drunk first.
Seriously though, one rule I have had in mind is a posting restriction on the number of posts one person can contribute in a day. The length doesn't matter, and they can even be consolidated, however I think the general read-ability of the list would greatly improve if we were limited to say, no more than 6-8 posts and replies per day. If it is that urgent and important, it can wait until the following day. This would prevent 50+ posting binges that swamp Inboxes and piss everyone off. It would also cool down flamewars as they would have less momentum to build on.
And finally, in a perfect would everyone would be forced to fucking EDIT, and like it!
In a more perfect would, I would rule the universe. 
|
|
|
|
|
Tywick
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 92
Reputation: 8.07
Rate Tywick
   
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #4 on: 2002-09-25 16:24:24 » |
|
I suggest Zero Tolerence for flaming in the mailling list. The moment that inflamatory comments are detected the members involved should be deactivated from the mailing list until the following conditions are met:
An agreement amongst the conflicting members.
An agreement NOT to use argumentative statements in the mailing list.
A formal e-mail to the Moderating party (perhaps David in most cases) promising NOT to use inappropriate behavior in the miling list, and an apology to the moderating party.
Keep in mind this is just a suggestion.
With the many flame fest that I've seen in multiple BBSs I decided to create my own anti-flame rule.
http://www.madisonunderground.com/Xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=17&forum=26&0
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #5 on: 2002-09-25 18:46:36 » |
|
A few initial comments regarding the code of conduct. Firstly, any code of conduct must be done quite formally and through mechanisms that are likely to gain something approaching consensus support. I am not saying that out of any sense of idealism*, but for two practical reasons. Firstly, because by temperament I would run the risk of finding myself on the wrong end of any proceedings, particularly in the case of an excessively draconian document, and (moving on quickly) because the perception of arbitrary power being exercised could easily exacerbate any situation. This particularly applies to the possibility of retroactively applying it to Virus, wherein it would have to be imposed; anyone remaining registered on the bbs would have to be deemed to have given their consent to the policy.
On the other hand, such an approach suffers the problem of sins of omission; some discretionary element (invested in whatever person or persons) would remain unavoidable. And clearly, pleasing all of the people all of the time is not going to happen.
Rough outline as follows: Do not post any material which is defamatory, libellous, abusive, harassing, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy. Then, statement regarding policy on spamming, flaming, trolling etc. Then procedure to be followed by moderators regarding infringements. I'd suggest that if the event of such, a moderator should be able to take action (possibly in consultation?), notify the individual concerned and post brief explanation (Or is that too much bother?). Virus to retain right to amend code of conduct at later point. This could also be followed with a set of recommendations (Jonathan's link would pertain). For example, snipping extraneous text from the previous message in replies.
More at a later point regarding David's original questions.
|
|
|
|
|
RavenBlack
Archon
Posts: 158
Reputation: 8.26
Rate RavenBlack
So very alive, and full of goo.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #6 on: 2002-09-25 19:15:34 » |
|
One problem that strikes me, now, with this 'rules' line of thought, is what happens when someone with a subtle knife gets involved. The particular example that springs to mind for this one is Mermaid, who managed to, one by one, get Sebby, me, Kharin, a couple of other people, then Hermit to behave in ways that would be a breach of any of the rules being proposed, without ever obviously breaching those rules herself - the only people at any given moment who would recognise the breach were the person being incised at that time, and the people who had already been so. A subtle troll could have a more devastating effect than ever, in pushing others to get banned.
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.11
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #7 on: 2002-09-25 19:19:05 » |
|
I have no problem at all with abusive language, be it turdwords, hemoroidal bloviations, insanity or ignorance, either supported or unsupported by evidence. Most of us can turn these things to their advantage in a rational argument, and that can be even entertaining.
For some reasons, politics is an exceptional domain where rational discussion cannot get past a certain line of personal defenses. If you recall, there was some rational discussion at first, but only up to a point. So, the solution we seek regarding irrational discussions should be specifically targeted at politics.
As I see it, the recent frustrating situation was largely due to a technical abuse of the list. The operation of the list itself was being held hostage -- as an argument. Dozens of separate threads were rolling down the screen, quick and snide insults, STFU pictures, things which required a moderator to act immediately. Hermit did handle some cases at first but then he got involved himself, several members opined that the list should be left alone, and the situation went out of control.
I believe we already have a handle on rational discussion and I suggest that the only thing needed is a quick and responsive technical moderation with no exceptions, a short lecture on technical and/or social competence to the offender and a limited time ban on the repeat offender. The content is something we can handle.
A possible exception could be a rule to keep political posts somewhere separately so that people don't be insulted. This rule can be revoked the first time that someone convinces someone else on a major political issue.
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.11
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #8 on: 2002-09-25 19:32:05 » |
|
[RavenBlack]
<snip>
Mermaid, who managed to, one by one, get Sebby, me, Kharin, a couple of other people, then Hermit to behave in ways that would be a breach of any of the rules being proposed, without ever obviously breaching those rules herself - the only people at any given moment who would recognise the breach were the person being incised at that time, and the people who had already been so. A subtle troll could have a more devastating effect than ever, in pushing others to get banned.
[rhinoceros]
Hey, these are valuable memetic techniques which you are withholding.
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #9 on: 2002-09-26 05:34:48 » |
|
Quote:| "So, the solution we seek regarding irrational discussions should be specifically targeted at politics." |
Would not a code of conduct have benefits outside the immediate context? As an example, in retrospect we probably should have developed something along these lines when Everett started spamming the list, a problem that had nothing to do with politics. I don't have a problem with abusive language per se, more with the form of behaviour likely to be associated with it.
I would also be loathe to segregrate political content entirely given that it is a subject most regular posters will want to bring up and usually without incident. Or are you referring to international, rather than domestic, politics?
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.11
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #10 on: 2002-09-26 07:00:30 » |
|
[rhinoceros 1]
So, the solution we seek regarding irrational discussions should be specifically targeted at politics.
[kharin 2]
Would not a code of conduct have benefits outside the immediate context?
[rhinoceros 2]
Yes, of couse. A code of conduct should cover everything. What I meant was that politics seem to also require special consideration as a domain causing trouble. No doubt, I would prefer to see my own political views dominating, but there are valued old-timers with strongly held completely opposite views. The easiest thing to do would be not to get to each other's face, but if we find a way to hold coherent and focused political discussions within single threads it would be ok by me.
[kharin 2]
As an example, in retrospect we probably should have developed something along these lines when Everett started spamming the list, a problem that had nothing to do with politics.
[rhinoceros 2]
Which shows that even one politely persistent person obsessed with a harmless topic good enough for a one-time laugh can wreak havoc if there is no code of conduct.
[kharin 2]
I would also be loathe to segregrate political content entirely given that it is a subject most regular posters will want to bring up and usually without incident. Or are you referring to international, rather than domestic, politics?
[rhinoceros 2]
Yes. As the saying goes, everything is political. Geopolitics is a touchy topic right now, but I can imagine that even the civil liberties topic could be dragged in, which would be a shame; that would make the CoV completely spineless and "harmless".
So, maybe we should move only geopolitics. That, or just moderate to keep the political discussions coherent and focused, rather than casually pouring in reference material. If two combatants start to exchange insults in a dozen of posts within a thread, then a moderator can easily conclude that the topic has been fully covered or that the particular combatants have exhausted their arguments. Personal retribution threads should also be excluded as a topic of virian interest.
PS: David has mentioned that there is a similar problem in the extropians BBS. If there is, it is not visible. It is hidden somewhere in there, and a lot of discussions are going on.
|
|
|
|
|
RavenBlack
Archon
Posts: 158
Reputation: 8.26
Rate RavenBlack
So very alive, and full of goo.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #11 on: 2002-09-26 07:36:27 » |
|
As I see it, all these suggestions of various methods of moderation lead to the same problem - someone will say "what gives you the right to decide what's okay". It seems to me that it might be best for David to simply declare himself supreme being, as the owner of the server. We know David prefers to avoid anything approaching censorship, so he's even quite safe as a moderation dictator - I would certainly trust him not to block anyone who hasn't been incredibly persistent, ignoring several warnings and contributing nothing new for a long time.
If there must be a rule, let it be something simple. There's little point in trying to codify what makes a post offensive, because there is no one thing, nor even a consistent combination; Mermaid didn't post prolifically, didn't throw overt insults, but was thoroughly abusive all the same. Everett posted nothing but polite responses and occasional short statements, but it was clear to all that his input was undesirable. As implied before, I think it would be very difficult to codify a rule that would cover Mermaid's pernicious behaviour. Hence, I think a rule that sounds strong but is open to interpretation would be the way to go. Something like "be reasonable".
With a rule such as that, I doubt moderating Dees, Mermaid, Everett or Infek would have met with anything worse than a slight disapproval. Not moderating such people at their worst, on the other hand, results in abject disgust. There's a very simple mechanism for people who disapprove of the list being moderated, of course - unlike when you live in a country, it's not hard to leave and form your own mailing list with your own laws. Or just leave.
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #12 on: 2002-09-26 09:28:31 » |
|
As I mentioned, a discretionary element would be required and any code would have to explicitly retain that right. The main advantage, as I see it, of a code would be putting off at least some randoid flamers from registering in the first place, in so far as it would serve as a statement of intent or warning (rather than something that would restrict us; as you say no definitive statement of what is or isn't acceptable would be possible).
Incidentally, aren't we reinventing the wheel here? I've just looked at section 13 of Hermit's proposed Codex and Appendices for the CoV and it covers all of this. So, we adopt that with immediate effect and enforce it accordingly.
Beyond that, I've not heard anything I hear I especially disagree with here and any implementation will get my vote.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.78
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #13 on: 2002-09-26 12:08:52 » |
|
Quote from: rhinoceros on 2002-09-26 07:00:30
PS: David has mentioned that there is a similar problem in the extropians BBS. If there is, it is not visible. It is hidden somewhere in there, and a lot of discussions are going on.
|
Yes, the discussion about the ExI list is offlist, like this one.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.78
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #14 on: 2002-09-26 12:17:12 » |
|
Quote from: RavenBlack on 2002-09-26 07:36:27
If there must be a rule, let it be something simple. There's little point in trying to codify what makes a post offensive, because there is no one thing, nor even a consistent combination; Mermaid didn't post prolifically, didn't throw overt insults, but was thoroughly abusive all the same. Everett posted nothing but polite responses and occasional short statements, but it was clear to all that his input was undesirable. As implied before, I think it would be very difficult to codify a rule that would cover Mermaid's pernicious behaviour. Hence, I think a rule that sounds strong but is open to interpretation would be the way to go. Something like "be reasonable".
|
This idea, coupled with Kharin's suggestion of a code of conduct that I would use as guidelines on deciding what is "reasonable" might work. It is also consistent with the current rules of IRC within a channel where the one and only rule is "don't piss off the ops".
I like the idea of a contractual subscription, that is when people sign up they agree that they will abide by the rules or suffer the established consequences. One problem that I would like to hear some ideas about is how to evolve the guidelines without requiring everyone to sign up again with each change.
The BBS has the built-in capability of having new subscribers explicitly agreeing to a document when they sign up. Unfortunately the mailing list does not, and posting to the mailing list will automatically create an account on the bbs. Of course this is just a technical problem, with a bit of coding I could change the mailing list subscription mechanism to be more like the BBS. Or it would be even easier to change it so that posting to the mailing list does not automatically create a BBS account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
