Improving a forum...

[evildave]

Given our long history of tolerance to people disruptively derailing topics, how would you design a forum to prevent this?

I will format this as a poll, simply because it would encourage input and format the topic. Only posts about designing a forum system are allowed. No name-calling, or reference to members by their names when making examples.

The following are a list of options that occurs to me immediately.

1. Threading. This is an old technique, where responses to a post go down a different path than the main discussion. This can be difficult to follow, and hard for a newbie to make heads or tails of. The "main" line of discussion tends to get lost among branches.

2. Give the topic starter the "power" to move posts into a "side track" thread. Put a little icon on the side of the post with the name of the person who tried to derail the discussion into something else. This becomes like a "hidden" topic addressed from the current topic. Anyone can follow the link (or see that it belonged to a troll and ignore it) and continue the discussion down that sideline if they like, or ignore the sideline and continue reading. People may deliberately take a post into a subtopic side-line. The top-level topic list could be a tree-view, in case anyone wants to directly participate in the side-discussions. A moderator might also promote a subtopic to top-level topic, as necessary.

3. The topic police. Long ago, and in other forums, the "topic police" have been dreaded. Of course, the garbage doesn't pile up, but so much judgment is called for that a topic police person will always be in the position where some people will claim a post really was "on topic".

4. Selective topic banning. When you create a topic, you may also elect to provide a list of people who specifically can not ever post to it. This puts the onus on the one who started the topic to pre-police it against known harrassers and trolls. If you know certain people will be likely to jump in and just carry on and immediately begin abusing others for their opinions, you can elect to make the topic for "anybody but these". Then the ineffective 'ignore list' becomes unnecessary, since certain people will almost always be ignored when topics are begun, and you can judge a topic "by its cover", since you know the worst cases on your own ignore list will never participate in any way. Naturally, the list of "who's pre-banned" is pasted on top of the opening post of the topic for all to see. Eventually, the same names end up on most topics.

5. Just BAN disruptive people. This puts the onus right back on the proprietors to do something about people who start abusing other people in even the smallest way. But once again, too subjective. Too easy to paint the moderators as 'ogres'.

6. It's just fine the way it is. Never change a thing.

7. Evildave, you idiot! All anyone needs to do is... (elaborate).

[Darat]

I posted this a while ago:


A plea for an amnesty and for a community to act

Since Bidlack has taken up the helm of responsibility for the Moderation of the JREF site I recently asked him would he consider bringing “order” to the R&P section?

The reason being that this part of the forum has long been a personal favourite of mine; I've had many great heated and fun discussions with many people of many different beliefs and opinions. I have also learnt whilst enjoying myself which has made my time here all the more satisfying to me - however it has now degenerated into a quagmire where decent debate is no longer possible.

Let me make one point clear – I am not asking for censorship or for anyone to be banned. (For a start I don't know how anyone could tell who was a "troll" or "non-troll" in the R&P section.)

---

We have so many threads discussing exactly the same points, issues, claims and beliefs that it has become impenetrable and almost impossible to follow any debate and at times, in many threads it appears that no-one has any idea of what they were debating in the first place!

What I am asking for is for us, the people who contribute to this forum, the “community” I refer to in the title of the thread, to decide to act as a community and bring some clarity and order to this section of the forum by formulating a plan and, if it requires the use of Moderator only abilities, ask Bidlack to implement the plan.

My suggestions are (and I don’t think these are the only way possible or that they are startling original or even great but at least it is a start):


Ask for a read-only “archive” subsection to be created on the forum.

Remove the many duplicated debate threads to this new section – leaving just one that we decide best represents the case for both sides of the issue discussed.

We agree on an “amnesty” period of a couple of days during which “antagonists” agree not to, deliberately, goad each other into responding about their areas of vehement disagreement

During the amnesty period we agree not to start new threads about our own personal “pet” subjects that we have seemingly been discussing non-stop for several months now.

We ask Bidlack to enforce the above two points on pain of thread deletion or in the case of repeated breaking of the amnesty suspension of posting rights for a few days.


I believe this would let us have a cooling-off period where we can as a community put this place back in order and help promote the debate and critical thinking we all support.

I understand that many posters will tell me to “bog off” (but not as politely as that) however I don’t want to see heavy-handed moderation being used in this forum and we are on the slippery slope to this section becoming meaningless.

R&P’s charm has been the mix of heated, passionate, well informed and rational debate with a large measure of good humour thrown in. Sadly - for whatever reason – it has lost this.

As a community we can make this section of the forum what we want it to be – but we have to act as a community to do so and I am asking all of you to at least think about what I’ve suggested and to discuss this as a group of critical thinking individuals.

[Soubrette]

evildave - what a brilliant idea :)

First I would want all participants to do things voluntarily - to think about what they are adding and why.

So, is what I'm about to post on topic? If not then could I make a little effort to find something to say on topic and then throw in my witticism. Ot is it's well off topic - is it worth starting a different thread.

Am I making a situation worse? Say for example we have someone who pollutes threads constantly, by responding am I making that situation worse so is it best not to respond?

Am I making the situation worse by constantly referring to someone. Say we have a....hypothetical :rolleyes: situation where someone posts insults and thread pollutes on a regular basis - does it help the forum if we constantly refer to them? Or are we actually adding to the problem we're complaining about?

Make a big effort to post to threads that are about Religion or Philosophy. I know I was always disappointed to see the response to Seelie's PoM threads - because some of you guys out there know loads of stuff about philosophy and I'd like to know some of it too:)

Make a big effort to start relevant posts. Let's quit moaning about how crap it is and actually start some of our own. Philosophy covers a whole range of things - epistemology, morals and ethics, metaphysics, even political philosophy etc etc. Let's start some topics on those things.

Although I'd actually like to see less moderation, I'd like to see more self control:p

I wonder whether having threaded discussions would actually be the way forward for this. Where you can respond to the post you are interested in and ignore something you are not so interested in. It was an idea put forward by xouper some time ago and I dismissed it back then - but it seems more and more attractive to me as time goes on - sorry xoup, wish I'd thought about it a bit harder when you first suggested it:)

So I'm voting for threading :)

Note these are my opinions only of course :)

Sou

[Q-Source]

Excellent ideas here.

My opinion is that we have to deal with something we cannot control and we cannot change:

1) Some people like to respond to heat threads, heat posters and heat topics. So, if this is the case, we need to ask them politely to stick to the topics of the threads.

2) Each one of us (whiners) should start a new thread at least once in a while. And rule that thread. Besides, some of the brightest posters here never start threads.

Darat,
I think your suggestions required a lot of moderation. As far as I know, it is something that many people don't support.

Sou,
Ignoring is not the solution if we don't have any other threads where we can post. I tried this for a week and I failed :(
We need more interesting topics and people interested on them.

[SpaceLord]

evildave:


I've derailed topics before, and I apologize. I've wanted to learn why a certain forum member believes the way he does, and getting that out of him is like pulling teeth.

I won't do it again.

p.s. Is this on topic? :)

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Q-Source
......
Sou,
Ignoring is not the solution if we don't have any other threads where we can post. I tried this for a week and I failed :(
We need more interesting topics and people interested on them.

Q_Source

Start some - I read some interesting topics that you suggested in Luciana's lipstick thread - start them:)

Let's feminazi the board - just a little;)

Sou

[Plutarck]

I would just like some way to ignore not only all instances of certain people's posts, but All Responses To Them. I don't want to read those idiots posts, so why the f*ck would I want to read what it is people want to say to them in response?

So I chose "Other". I don't know how it would work, and frankly I don't care - I just want it, and I would be as happy as a lark.

Oh, one other thing - thread-specific ignoring. So I can put PosterA on ignore for that specific thread only, and so ignore all things in response to his posts also/optionally(as with the above).


Those, and I would say "It's perfect - now shut the hell up and leave it alone."

[Darat]

Originally posted by Q-Source
...snip....

2) Each one of us (whiners) should start a new thread at least once in a while. And rule that thread. Besides, some of the brightest posters here never start threads.

Darat,
I think your suggestions required a lot of moderation. As far as I know, it is something that many people don't support.

..snip....

Well I was trying to stress it would be "self imposed moderation". My idea is for us all to act as a community of intelligent, rational people and determine what course of action to take to make improvements in our community.

It involves the use of "moderator" powers yes - but only at the behest of the posters and only for a short while.

And I would have thought with the “brain” we have here in R&P we should be able to decide amicably between us on the best course of action.

[Jedi Knight]

The forum is fine. There are no changes that need to be made.

JK

[billydkid]

Actually, Dave, I don't think you're an idiot, but I think it is wrong, wrong, wrong to start, essentially, censoring forums or threads. I have to tell you that I have read about as much Franko and Muscleman and JK and Wraith and Ian and a number of others as I can take, but I would not dream of trying to shut them out of a thread or make them conform to some sort of thread decorum. Dopey, pointless, offensive or off topic posts are plenty easy to ignor. If someone is percieved as a troll, well, just don't feed them. No, I think, however well intentioned you and others might be, I think the idea of trying to hold forums or topics in check so that they conform to your likes or dislikes or my likes or dislikes is a bad, bad idea. On the other hand, if you want to start a moderated thread and moderate it yourself you are perfectly free to do that. You can then delete and post that you don't like for whatever reason. my two cents. BDK

I like 6. don't change a thing... but then, I get exactly what I want from this forum. Good people to converse with, lots to learn, opposing viewpoints, a place to let your hair down.

The recent upheavals are a sign of both an evolving forum and a lack of maturity, but they are to be expected in a place where people don't hold back and speak their minds. Some minds are small and mean, but they are so in the minority it hardly requires any effort at all to overlook it. For myself, at least.

I'm not what... anyone would call a 'valued member' of this forum, but I enjoy it...

I still maintain this forum could use more levity.

I like it just as it is, I am free to speak to whom I want, when I want, and where I want, I am also free to ignore whom I want, not read what I don't want to, and not go where I dont want to.

That suits me just fine.

Originally posted by Thorin LungHammer
I'm not what... anyone would call a 'valued member' of this forum, but I enjoy it...


Valued member??Is there a difference then your a member aren't you? Why do you have to be 'valued' to participate or have any validity in saying anything etc?

[Franko]

Pie: (ESP says "Hottie")
I like it just as it is, I am free to speak to whom I want, when I want, and where I want, I am also free to ignore whom I want, not read what I don't want to, and not go where I dont want to.

That suits me just fine.

Yes, yes, yes, but you have to remember that when the A-Theist says "free will", he means just for him, not you Darling.

... Here, why don't you just give Trixy, or Dr X access to your account so they can properly configure your IGNORE list? Obviously you aren't smart enough or responsible enough to do it yourself. You better let a "superior intellect" guide you regarding what you can read and not read. :rolleyes:

I'm with you 100% Pie, I can't see how any self respecting "Skeptic" can be calling for censorship because of conflicting and opposing ideas? On a Religion and Philosophy forum no less! Who would have thought there might be conflicting idea here?? We had better put a stop to that right away! people might think we were "free-thinkers" or something horrible like that ...

Just watch closely who are the ones calling for the censorship ...

Originally posted by Franko


Yes, yes, yes, but you have to remember that when the A-Theist says "free will", he means just for him, not you Darling.

... Here, why don't you just give Trixy, or Dr X access to your account so they can properly configure your IGNORE list? Obviously you aren't smart enough or responsible enough to do it yourself. You better let a "superior intellect" guide you regarding what you can read and not read. :rolleyes:

I'm with you 100% Pie, I can't see how any self respecting "Skeptic" can be calling for censorship because of conflicting and opposing ideas? On a Religion and Philosophy forum no less! Who would have thought there might be conflicting idea here?? We had better put a stop to that right away! people might think we were "free-thinkers" or something horrible like that ...

Just watch closely who are the ones calling for the censorship ...
Franko the esp says easy tiger ;)

As I was called the other day a troll feeder for my chatting with so called trolls namely Jedi, you and paul , as I said I don't call you as trolls, and I also have talked with Tricky and Dr. X if they have a problem it's their problem not mine.

I will not tolerated be told whom I will talk to and whom I cannot.

I chose to talk to all those not on my ignore list.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by billydkid
[B]Actually, Dave, I don't think you're an idiot, but I think it is wrong, wrong, wrong to start, essentially, censoring forums or threads. I have to tell you that I have read about as much Franko and Muscleman and JK and Wraith and Ian and a number of others as I can take,

Huh?? Why am I in that list?? Just because I'm not an a*sehole materialist/"skeptic"/atheist????? :eek:

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[wert]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Huh?? Why am I in that list?? Just because I'm not an a*sehole materialist/"skeptic"/atheist????? :eek:

:mad: :mad: :mad: Perhaps it's because you attempt to turn nearly every thread you post on into a tedious diatribe about the evils of materialism?

I'm sure an intelligent fellow like yourself could expound learnedly about different topics every now and then eh?

Originally posted by wert
Perhaps it's because you attempt to turn nearly every thread you post on into a tedious diatribe about the evils of materialism?
I'm sure an intelligent fellow like yourself could expound learnedly about different topics every now and then eh?


I find Ian's posts intelligent and thought-provoking, as well as some of Frankos, JK's and wraiths.

We all don't agree on many topics, but that is what makes this a discussion board, not a nod-in-agreement board.

Originally posted by Whodini



I find Ian's posts intelligent and thought-provoking, as well as some of Frankos, JK's and wraiths.

We all don't agree on many topics, but that is what makes this a discussion board, not a nod-in-agreement board.

Complete agreement. Room for all...

[QuarkChild]

I'm not what... anyone would call a 'valued member' of this forum, but I enjoy it...

I value you. Anyone who quotes the Foundation series in their sig line is a friend of mine. In my more charitable moments, I even forgive you for abandoning the alias Magnifico.
(Besides, you posted on my Asimov thread...:) )

Seriously, I think you add a lot of character to this forum.

Originally posted by QuarkChild


I value you. Anyone who quotes the Foundation series in their sig line is a friend of mine. In my more charitable moments, I even forgive you for abandoning the alias Magnifico.
(Besides, you posted on my Asimov thread...:) )

Seriously, I think you add a lot of character to this forum.

(Blushes) Thank you! I am pleased that a few here enjoy my attempts at humor... (bows clumsily)

Regardless of whatever the current username is, I'll always be Magnifico. The sigline stays as a reminder of 'who' I was and am. I change it periodically for fun.

Fun improves a forum...

[evildave]

Well, so far nothing far off topic. Though I did warn not to mention anybody BY NAME.

The primary reason I ask for this information isn't necessarily even to change JREF in any way. I am as powerless as anyone else to make changes to the JREF forum or its policies.

But one day soon, I will have to contribute to the design, setup, coding and administration of a another on-line forum. Actually several forums in different formats, in-game and out. I've had this task twice before, writing forums from scratch. Of course, these were for "premium" services you had to pay to use, with strictly enforced guidelines that could get you permanently banned for breaking. Let's just say the first instance of juvenile name-calling and baiting could be the last, since most people don't PAY to be abused.

I've only been tossing some ideas through my head relevent to this problem of forum administration from a design perspective.

Designing a new one from scratch, how to make the thing more "self healing". How much power to give to whom, such that there is no overwhelming amount of administration necessary to keep it running smoothly. Make it "self-police" to the greatest extent possible. Allow a moderator to go virtually "hands off" on a forum and have the disruptive posts and rants basically veer off on their own little dead-end tangents without utterly derailing the discussions at hand.

My current thinking involves varying levels of topic-relative moderation, such that certain participants can contribute, on the main line, and others can talk and play "in the margins". Or everyone can play, but disruptive or off-topic responses can be put into "the margins" where they belong. They're not deleted, or moved out of context. They're just set along-side the topical posts where you can optionally scroll over to read and respond to them without disrupting the ongoing discussion.

My thinking is that by setting up the "game rules" up front, a lot of misunderstandings can be avoided down the line.

A few examples...

A topic where all responses are initially invisible until the topic moderator selects which are "on-topic" and which are not. Or in some way structures them relative to the discussion. Perhaps to run a puzzle game without spoiling the solution. Perhaps to discuss something particularaly inflammatory, like what happened on many forums immediately after 9/11.

A topic where everything that's posted goes up immediately, except "replies" branch off into a thread.

A topic where everything that's posted becomes instantly viewable, and it doesn't branch (like this forum).

A topic where everything that's posted goes up immediately, but you know that {designated person} will rule it with a merciless iron fist.

A topic that only {list of people} can see and participate in.

A topic that only {list of people} participate in, but everyone can see. List may be edited to include more.

A topic that anyone except {list of people} participate in, and everyone can see.

Topics that everyone can post in, but only {list of mods} can see. A bit like PMs, but it becomes a "first mod, first serve" thing.

----

Then there are the "powers" and "features".

The "power" to take a list of post off an ongoing thread and make a new topic out of them, leaving appropriate links behind to the relevant topic automatically.

The "power" to begin concatenating an ongoing flame war that's polluting a dozen topics into one topic, leaving appropriate links behind to the relevant topic automatically.

The "power" to review revisions of a post.

The "power" for mods to annotate posts, and let each other know what's been done about various requests and housekeeping tasks.

---

Unless you take a moment to critically evaluate what you have, you can't ever really know for sure whether it's beyond improvement.

For instance, I agree that certain members of the forum who are generally disruptive and abusive pests can occasionally have a few lucid posts between their long rants. Generally, unless they speak directly to me, I treat their posts as "to whom it may concern" (i.e. junk mail to nobody), and abuse from them as "talking gibberish" (or "speaking in tongues") again. This works well for me.

[MRC_Hans]

In late here, heheh. As some may have noticed, I'm one of the "hawks". I'm FOR active moderation, and I think the fact that we spend so much energy on the issue is evidence that something is not right.

Although I have seen forums come to grief because of trolls and abusive behaviour, I dont think the danger is imminent here, as this forum seems very healthy, but the value of the forum to all cencerned is reduced by the energy wasted.

I would go for more aggessive moderation, but not for all the more technical solutions as suggested by Evildave (I suppose mentioning your name here is in order?), as they will all make the forum more difficult to use.

I'm dead against censorship, in the sense that I think that people should not be restricted in expressing their beliefs and opinions. But I dont think there is any reason at all for abusing others, and I don't call preventing it censorship.

I vote for moderators acting against:

1) Personal attacks, including excessive name-calling.

2) Derailing of threads.

3) Spamming.

And I think the measures should be, in that order:

1) Warnings.

2) Editing/deletion of posts.

3) Temporary suspension of right to post.

4) Permanent suspension.

In my experience, once the tone is set in a forum, very little actual moderation is needed.

Cheers,
Hans

[wert]

Um, whodini.

FYI

If you're replying to me, you've been on my ignore list for quite a while.

[wert]

Originally posted by evildave

A topic where all responses are initially invisible until the topic moderator selects which are "on-topic" and which are not. AFAIK, this moderation feature is already available with the vBulletin software being used here.

To wit. (from the features page of vBulletin)

Moderation queues on posting and registration - check new posts before they become publicly viewable and new registrants before they can post.

Might be good for some topics.

[Yahzi]

You mean make it so that Franko could not respond to any thread I started?

That's brilliant!

Also, make it so that if I put Tricky on my /friends list, I automatically /ignore everybody he's /ignoring.

Finally, make it so that you can see how many people are ignoring someone. If new people come to the board and see Franko (or worse, Muscleman!), they are going to be put off. But if they see "1,378 people are ignoring this poster," they'll just slap him on ignore and everything will be fine.

We wouldn't need the mods to ban people (except for spammers and illegal postings) if we could, as a community, effectively ban them ourselves.

If we could get people to stop quoting the dang goobers, that is.

Originally posted by Whodini



I find Ian's posts intelligent and thought-provoking, as well as some of Frankos, JK's and wraiths.

We all don't agree on many topics, but that is what makes this a discussion board, not a nod-in-agreement board.

I agree too Whodini and Thorin. Guess that means I am ignored now too:(

It is a discussion forum after all isn't it? Or is somebody saying we, the members can only reply, post, discuss with what the 'valued' members say we can and with whom? Is that freedom of speech or is it more like dictatorship by the popularity contenders?
:(

Originally posted by Yahzi
You mean make it so that Franko could not respond to any thread I started?

That's brilliant!

Also, make it so that if I put Tricky on my /friends list, I automatically /ignore everybody he's /ignoring.

Finally, make it so that you can see how many people are ignoring someone. If new people come to the board and see Franko (or worse, Muscleman!), they are going to be put off. But if they see "1,378 people are ignoring this poster," they'll just slap him on ignore and everything will be fine.

We wouldn't need the mods to ban people (except for spammers and illegal postings) if we could, as a community, effectively ban them ourselves.

If we could get people to stop quoting the dang goobers, that is.

Yahzi aren't you just be cruel and selective like a dictator(not you several others it applies to)? You like the others don't have to read Franko et al posts, so why can't Franko et al reply to something that they might be interested in?

What I read is Franko saying one thing and dozens of people moaning and attacking and creating thread to attack them and then moaning when they all defend themselves back, who is worse Franko for stating his beliefs or those jumping in with daggers at the ready?

Sorry It's those with raised daggers. :( That's upsetting

[MRC_Hans]

Since the names are out of the bag: IMHO, Franko, Muscleman, S&S, MRC_Hans, Fool, DR. X, and anybody else can discuss their beliefs and ideas all they want, provided they can find anybody who cares to participate in the debate.

What I think is counterproductive is distorting the words of others, name-calling, ad hominem, and the plethora of other things we see here that have absolutely no place in any debate. If some people need to let out steam, there is the Flame Wars forum.

Hans

[Girl 6]

Well, it's totally within your power to engage people in whatever discourse you feel like.

As such, if you want to change the direction that R&P has taken lately, I suggest that you all put in some concerted effort to not engage each other in flames.

For an example of how the forum can go, see the moderated thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12191) that's been going strong since the beginning of this year.

I'm not advocating that the moderators need to step in here. I certainly don't want it to go that direction. I'm placing some faith in the community as a whole to control themselves. After all, we are skeptics first. Let's exercise some critical thinking along with the respect that goes with it.

thanks!
G6

[Franko]

For an example of how the forum can go, see the moderated thread that's been going strong since the beginning of this year.

So censorship (moderated) is the only way to go?

I know a thread that has been around even longer, and has almost 4x as many hits and posts ... without ANY moderator intervention.

[Franko]

Yatzi: (non-Skeptic)
You mean make it so that Franko could not respond to any thread I started?

That's brilliant!

Yeah, since you are unable to respond logically to any points raised against your precious religious beliefs, this would help you hide your embarassment.

Also, make it so that if I put Tricky on my /friends list, I automatically /ignore everybody he's /ignoring.

Ahh, yes you goose-stepping Nazi, that would be great for the Cult of Groupthink.

Finally, make it so that you can see how many people are ignoring someone. If new people come to the board and see Franko (or worse, Muscleman!), they are going to be put off. But if they see "1,378 people are ignoring this poster," they'll just slap him on ignore and everything will be fine.

In your dreams loser-boy! I have no doubt there are far more people on this forum who read my posts, then read yours.

Based on the number of responses alone.

We wouldn't need the mods to ban people (except for spammers and illegal postings) if we could, as a community, effectively ban them ourselves.

Hey, I actually agree with that!

If we could get people to stop quoting the dang goobers, that is.

I never see anyone quote you or trixy. What do you ever say worth repeating?

Originally posted by wert
Um, whodini.
FYI
If you're replying to me, you've been on my ignore list for quite a while.


Um Wart,

FYI

You aren't doing a good job of keeping me on ignore then.

MRC_Hans pretty much summed up my opinion.

Why change all the rules when the problem boils down to the behavior of a half-dozen people? It's not fair to everyone else. I think there should be a policy to temporarily suspend someone who is outrageously and continuously abusive, as Win showed us all such a good example of the other day. "Win at all costs" may be a good policy for an army, but this is a discussion forum. People like this should be (at least temporarily) booted with no apology.

Many of our more "interesting" posters slide too easily into abuse. I am thinking of one in particular who is an interesting person to talk to but should have "I can't believe the incredible stupidity of you people" just put into his sig line and be done with it. :D It would make them all much more interesting if they were forced to behave.

I also think a thread creator should have the absolute ability to delete posts in that thread. Some members are proven thread-disrupters and this shouldn't be tolerated.

As to who makes such judgement calls: Not to disparage any other moderators, but Girl6 and Hal have always struck me as the most level-headed people around here, I have no problem leaving decisions like this to them.

[FireGarden]

My brilliant idea:


Have the topics that people rate the highest hang around on the front page longer. Topics like POM disappear way to quickly sometimes.

[roger]

evildave,

Might I suggest looking into how sites like slashdot handles this problem? There is no moderation, no deleted/moved posts, etc, yet each individual gets to view what they want by setting their threshhold. Essentially, posts get voted on for quality in a range from -1 to 5. So if you set your threshold to 3, you will only see posts with average votes of 3 or higher.

How do you get the right to moderate (meaning vote, not delete/modify threads). Each poster gets a karma - which is calculated by the votes you receive on your own posts. If you post a lot of interesting things, then your karma is high and you get to start rating other posts. If most of your posts are considered negatively, then of course you won't get a chance to moderate.

A faq that describes this much better is available: http://slashdot.org/faq/

Anyway, all of the source code for slashdot is open source, so it is readily available.

Frankly, all this advice about engaging people in better dialogue, starting your own threads, not reading those you find objectionable, although well meaning, just doesn't work. The board is in the state it is in, and will pretty much stay this way as it is set up. Technology exists to make it better, and there is no need for moderation or endless handwringing about the behavior of member X.

Roger

[FireGarden]

Aha,
I just realised that you can already sort the forum by rating.
Go back a few days, see the good threads....

Oops...
Too many threads with one vote, (5 Stars!)
I suppose that I should vote more often

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Franko


So censorship (moderated) is the only way to go?

I know a thread that has been around even longer, and has almost 4x as many hits and posts ... without ANY moderator intervention.

I think you know me better than this, Franko. :)

I would NOT advocate censorship. I pointed out that thread because despite everything, it's still going and people ARE civilized. :)

If there are other threads that are successful without moderator intervention, then that's great to hear. I'm totally all FOR threads that need NO moderation. I have enough work as it is.

I think my bottom line here is that it IS possible engage in flame-free discussions here. You all are going to have to make that a reality. And, I'll be the first to cheer you on. In fact, nothing would make me happier! I'm tired of having to come down from my exalted mountaintop so often to throw down some tablets. ;)

G6

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
My brilliant idea:


Have the topics that people rate the highest hang around on the front page longer. Topics like POM disappear way to quickly sometimes.

I agree on both points :)

Sou

It would help if the forum software put the Rating option

1) in a larger font

2) on the same line as the New Topic and Post Reply options

These would help insure people wouldn't miss it.

[SortingItAllOut]

Some of the suggestions presented here seem like good ideas. Sometimes it seems like threads start off well and then *wham!* it degenerates into a back-and-forth argument that resembles so many of the other threads that I just get fed up trying to find posts that address the original idea for the thread. I find myself getting frustrated sometimes with the digressions.

I've noticed that sometimes the original poster does a good job of keeping the discussion on track. Soubrette is one example. But this does involve work on the part of the thread starter to keep things going in the intended direction. Of course, it is somewhat akin to herding cats at times.;)

I wish there was a way to ignore responses to folks I'm already ignoring. Is there a way to do this? I don't necessarily want to add yet another person to my ignore list, but I'm not much interested in replies to folks I didn't want to hear from in the first place.:(

I'm not sure that trying to censor/ban folks works that well. How hard is it to just create a new alias? I suppose it has been tried before succesfully. Plus, as soon as you start picking and choosing what can be posted, folks tend to get annoyed. Common decency and such generally keeps folks within tolerable limits, I think.

Take care,
Sort:)