our rights

Discussion in 'gV governance' started by Mars, 29 Nov 2010.

Tags:
Topic Status:
Read-only.
  1. ev0L

    ev0L Ghost in The Shell

    Well... I would be more inclined to like a slashdot like system
    where users can mod a post down the thread based on relevancy.
     
  2. Fatz

    Fatz ..is a professional.

    It might be better just to limit it to the thread at hand to avoid ostracizing anyone. I've been involved in threads where someone is a complete twit, and there's a parallel thread running where their conduct is completely acceptable. In a way this is tantamount to giving the user the ability to effectively close the thread if the user chooses to kick virtually every user out of the thread. I'm not suggesting one user has the ability to delete another persons posts, just kick them out of the current thread as-is, where-is. Maybe even a dialog that requires a reason be given for the user being kicked.

    It would all be up to the thread starter though. Just a hunch, but I very much doubt Mulch would ever kick users out of one of his threads, so people know what they're getting into when the post in it. On the other hand, if there were posts of a technical nature and someone started dragging in lolcats, jokes and generally distracting from the core issues, then I would probably boot that person. This would eliminate the nonsense that went into the thread on FSC where Bams proved Fester tried to get into her machine (and the forum for that matter). The derailers started showing up in the thread to make things as difficult as possible to understand. The same thing happens in engineering forums when someone shows up and starts dumping in factually incorrect information and argues obtusely that it isn't true. That's a very different kind of forum than this where the moderator deletes out posts that aren't pertinent to the topic (I'm not suggesting in any way that should be done here--just that it is done on some sites because the data presented is considered a proven working model.

    I don't know. Part of me worries about the cult of personality that could form around a user that starts a thread and keeps out the black sheep right away, but I'm not certain that person would get that popular in the kind of forum we're talking about.

    This seems like a way to keep standards unique to a person so that no one can bitch about the rules--only about a user. Everyone in the forum has a different standard as to what amounts to censorship and the "proper" way to do things so something like this would be a 'put your money where your mouth is' proposition.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Love

    Love Feel the love
    Bored

    Fatz, I don't know if it would play out that way, but it would be neat to flesh it out and try it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Mulch

    Mulch Why does the drum come hither?
    Psychedelic

    i think we are entitled to thumbmaster moderation

    one mod

    if they get caught moderating, the person who caught them is moderator

    until they get caught moderating

    basically, one decision and you are out, so make the decision imoportant
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Mulch

    Mulch Why does the drum come hither?
    Psychedelic

    i also think we should find a way to include the "no drink/drank/ or drunk" rule as well
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Lias

    Lias Open Community!
    Arsey

     
  7. Lain

    Lain End of line. #resist
    Sneaky

    I like the following suggestions....

    term limits for moderators/admins, some sort of polled voting to elect them or if we want to keep it anonymous then have a place where people can stick their nominees and then have a random selection after the nominees are screened by the group for asshats.

    I (sortof) like the idea of removing troublesome posters from a thread (they can always start their own and bitch), but I think it shold again, be some sort of a vote thing. They get so many middle finger buttons and they get muted or something? They can still read it but can't post.

    That's all I have right now, I just got my eyes open. HUGS
     
  8. nina

    nina still prettier than you
    Nerdy

    i think the spirit of this thread is to discuss the limitations of admins and whatnot, not to propose radical changes in website functionality. its probably best to talk about this as it applies to the current website.

    my interpretation of the things listed:
    the right to fair administration - admin/mod shouldnt hold any person to less account than others. equal application of any rules. no admin pets or privileged class.
    the right to appeal - people should have an opportunity to make their case against whatever discipline publicly
    the right to voice dissent - be allowed to disagree or hold an unpopular opinion without fear of admin disapproval. wont get booted from an abortion thread for maintaining pro-life arguments for example.
    the right to privacy - my privacy preferences arent changed by the admin, my pm's arent exposed, pm communications with some admin/mod arent shared with others or eluded to in discussion, email i used to register with isnt shared or used for spam
     
    • Like Like x 6
  9. Sarah Nerd

    Sarah Nerd Feels most comfortable around other misfits.
    Barefooter

    I've always disliked too much moderation, but I think I could accept rules better as long as they are spelled out well and aren't blanket rules that could cover anything if you spun it the right way. At SC2 anything could fall under the asshat rule, because you could apply the term asshat to any situation really since it was such a subjective term.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  10. Tittertat

    Tittertat neurotic, but sweet :)
    Panicky

    agreed
     
  11. Snapper O'Callaghan

    Snapper O'Callaghan It's not a hug. I'm not finished strangling you.


    These seem like nice basics.

    As far as any other modifications such as kicking people out threads and similar user functions, they will all be abused eventually by someone. Choose carefully.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  12. Lain

    Lain End of line. #resist
    Sneaky

    There's always..... The Mediation Pit Panel.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Morgaine Alter

    Morgaine Alter ppl watching what I like

    the right to fair administration
    Will the admin of this forum look at things objectively and fairly use their control over gV when needed no matter who the poster is?


    the right to appeal
    How would this play out and where?
    Will it be in a sub-forum made for appeals that all can post in?


    the right to voice dissent
    A poster will be able to give there own opinion on any matter they are involved in. Also, when it is against the grain of the majority posters and/or the ppl who are in charge of the forum.
    There will be no repercussions against an account for doing so?


    the right to privacy
    Which means no sharing of personal information w/o consent of someone?
    No accessing an accounts profile w/o the knowledge of the account holder?
    No sharing of "conversations/pm's" with a third party w/o consent?

    Will there be a formal "TOS" of this site?
     
  14. Briana

    Briana Vibrating erver closer to 4th Density
    Woot

    i do still like the idea of people in your ignore list being unable to participate in threads you start. But any sort of thread owner moderation is nice if we can censure abusers.
     
  15. GradyE

    GradyE Hybrid Angel
    Angelic

    In principle it seems like a good idea but turn it around. A person could put another on ignore and then start a trash thread about them.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Tittertat

    Tittertat neurotic, but sweet :)
    Panicky

    i would like to think that we are all adult enough to NOT do this, AND that if someone else did do this, that the rest of the community would not participate in such behavior...
    again, i am simple minded and naive, though
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Love

    Love Feel the love
    Bored

    I'd like to think that too.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Tittertat

    Tittertat neurotic, but sweet :)
    Panicky

    you know, i guess i think that things really got out of hand "at that other place" because it was overtly encouraged and participated in by admin on down~the community that was created over there was exactly the type of community they wanted~and i also believe that the community that was created was not a result of bad moderation....bad moderation was created as a result of the type of community that already existed (which came first, the chicken or the egg...)
    that said, i don't think everyone "over there" is bad~i think there are genuinely good people with real relationships, who really care about each other and their community
    given that we have no clear cut admin or leader, we are EACH charged with creating the type of community that we would want to participate in
    that said, there will be heated discussions, arguments, anger, drama, and bad behavior....and how to resolve that conflict, i've no idea
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. nina

    nina still prettier than you
    Nerdy

    this suggests so:
    your task is to give these rights context. in addition, it is expected that you may wish to discuss additional rights. we hope that these rights will be questioned, scrutinised, interpreted, and debated, with the ultimate goal of putting these rights into a cohesive document representative of you as a community.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Snapper O'Callaghan

    Snapper O'Callaghan It's not a hug. I'm not finished strangling you.

    I wouldn't appreciate this. I prefer people be able to use an ignore function as a tool for moderation of their individual experience.
     
    • Like Like x 4
Topic Status:
Read-only.

Share This Page