Suggestion for a BBS not-quite-moderation system
category: general [glöplog]
Ok, here is a thought:
It's often impossible to have longer-running serious threads about something here at pouet. In many cases it's funny, but quite often there are also trolls posting crap into a thread - which got worse with a lot of non-scene-trolls recently joining pouet to spread their strange pr0n tastes etc.
We all hate censorship etc yadda, and "real" moderation will only result in some evil admins taking full control, which nobody wants including the admins.
[continued...]
It's often impossible to have longer-running serious threads about something here at pouet. In many cases it's funny, but quite often there are also trolls posting crap into a thread - which got worse with a lot of non-scene-trolls recently joining pouet to spread their strange pr0n tastes etc.
We all hate censorship etc yadda, and "real" moderation will only result in some evil admins taking full control, which nobody wants including the admins.
[continued...]
So how about the following:
Allow the *starter* of a thread to flag posts inside the very thread he has started as inappropriate. Doing this would get these posts hidden. In thread view, there optionally could be an option for the viewer to unhide those hidden posts (like "This thread contains filtered posts. Click here to include the filtered posts in the thread").
I think this could solve the issue of a few threads getting pouetized while there still is actual interesting discussion running. And if someone does not like to get this posts hidden in a thread started by someone else, he can simply start his own thread on the matter - no way to complain about "omg you fucked with my fr33 sp3ach rightz!", no stupid fights etc.
As the topic starter is already saved in the DB, this also should not be too much work to implement - add a "hide" icon to each post when viewed by the thread starter, add a flag to posts in the db on this, and if a thread contains any flagged posts, display the notification on top.
What do you think?
Allow the *starter* of a thread to flag posts inside the very thread he has started as inappropriate. Doing this would get these posts hidden. In thread view, there optionally could be an option for the viewer to unhide those hidden posts (like "This thread contains filtered posts. Click here to include the filtered posts in the thread").
I think this could solve the issue of a few threads getting pouetized while there still is actual interesting discussion running. And if someone does not like to get this posts hidden in a thread started by someone else, he can simply start his own thread on the matter - no way to complain about "omg you fucked with my fr33 sp3ach rightz!", no stupid fights etc.
As the topic starter is already saved in the DB, this also should not be too much work to implement - add a "hide" icon to each post when viewed by the thread starter, add a flag to posts in the db on this, and if a thread contains any flagged posts, display the notification on top.
What do you think?
BASS!
I think people complaining about "pouetizing" in every god damn thread has become an even bigger problem than the actual "pouetizing" itself.
Oh you meant about your idea? ;)
Well I think it leaves too much space for vandalism, not all thread starters are trustworthy... Some sort of vote system where everyone gets to vote if the message is shown or not would be much better, but obviously much more difficult to implement too.
Oh you meant about your idea? ;)
Well I think it leaves too much space for vandalism, not all thread starters are trustworthy... Some sort of vote system where everyone gets to vote if the message is shown or not would be much better, but obviously much more difficult to implement too.
scamp, alternatively, how about another process:
moderators could mark interesting / contentful posts in a thread to be stored in a "hall of fame" kind of bbs, where the threads would show up, edited.
or a way to separate the pouetization posts from the main thread to be put in another "noise" sub-bbs
moderators could mark interesting / contentful posts in a thread to be stored in a "hall of fame" kind of bbs, where the threads would show up, edited.
or a way to separate the pouetization posts from the main thread to be put in another "noise" sub-bbs
how about not using pouet for real discussion?
Quote:
Dear Ass Master,
My boyfriend keeps telling me that if I learn to eat his ass deep enough, I could lick his prostate. Is that really true?
Betty, OH
Betty,
Unless you have an abnormally long tongue, I don't believe you will be able to lick your boyfriend's prostate. I suspect your boyfriend really gets off on having his ass eaten. The next time he's telling you to eat deeper and lick his prostate, why not give him a surprise. Slip a hand into a well lubricated rubber glove and slide a finger into his ass. He may object a little at first. But once you start stroking his prostate and gently pulling on his balls with your other hand, he'll be shooting his load and weak in the knees in no time.
*sigh* i love www.toss-my-salad.com
scamp: its a nice idea, get me a new webadmin and we'll implement it.
tribe: no, we're not gonna reinvent slashdot :)
ps: I'm spreading the word, OTOH I could need another admin for untergrund.net myself ;)
tribão: If a thread-starter is not trust-worthy, then you simply don't post in his thread. This would cause trolls to suffer from thread starvation, which would be a good thing.
And as the filtering could be turned off per thread with a single click, this can't really be abused that much anyway - it's basicly that the thread starter is suggesting which contributions to the thread are worth reading. If you think that the thread starter's suggestion isn't good for you, you just don't follow it and hit "unhide".
tribão: If a thread-starter is not trust-worthy, then you simply don't post in his thread. This would cause trolls to suffer from thread starvation, which would be a good thing.
And as the filtering could be turned off per thread with a single click, this can't really be abused that much anyway - it's basicly that the thread starter is suggesting which contributions to the thread are worth reading. If you think that the thread starter's suggestion isn't good for you, you just don't follow it and hit "unhide".
i have revolutionizing web 2.0 moderation idea: what if users could "dig" or "not dig" every post and they would either show up or not depending on how many people dug them.
on a more serious note, i like scamps idea, but i think it'd be better if one could un-hide individual posts instead of just showing all inappropriate posts at once.
on a more serious note, i like scamps idea, but i think it'd be better if one could un-hide individual posts instead of just showing all inappropriate posts at once.
waffle: pouet.net has a quite big audience - a lot of sceners read it. In the past, I've had lots of interesting discussions here, eg about Breakpoint. Those discussions would have had much less input at different scene fora (like bitfellaz).
I often find pouet.net BBS threads valuable and interesting to read.
I often find pouet.net BBS threads valuable and interesting to read.
Scamp is right.
We should also only let white men write on pouet bbs.
on a side note; don't you serious lamers know about slashdot?
on a side note; don't you serious lamers know about slashdot?
I dont think it is a good idea to let the thread starters moderate their own thread. Doing that there is no way to have really unbiased discussions, since the thread starter is always tempted to remove threads that may be slightly off his agenda. Also, this would generate a slur of (possibly annoying) "competing" threads.
.. remove posts ..
Quote:
Allow the *starter* of a thread to flag posts inside the very thread he has started as inappropriate.
Which basically makes it the system you don't like, except with a decentralized, constantly changing moderator. It also puts the poster in the less-than-stellar responsibility of having to constantly monitor his thread, for which the bbs is ill-equipped.
Furthermore, you know that
a. Trolls will then just post threads a lot more. This won't make them go away at all.
b. If one message is there long enough, you'll have to go through all the responses to that in order to see if you're not hiding relevant data.
Waffle's solution is a lot more realistic.
MUCH MORE IMPORTANT:
A friggin preview function in the BBS.
dandelion: or anywhere where ubbcode (and unicode :p) works
I could probably code some sort of live preview in JS, for at least OP and FF ( no promise for IE )
I could probably code some sort of live preview in JS, for at least OP and FF ( no promise for IE )
Quote:
Waffle's solution is a lot more realistic.
Sorry Shifter but I fail to see why people wanting interesting discussions on Pouet should feel compelled to go away because of a bunch of unproductive bored retards.
shifter: I don't agree. For many threads (like.. all the fun/random/image-threads), the thread starter simply won't care.
However, for "person x wished to discuss something with the community" kind of threads, he may create a filtered view of the thread for those who really are interested in the subject without getting distracted by trolling.
And..
a. Trolls trolling in troll-threads should be perfectly fine for everyone. If you don't like trolls, you skip a troll thread. However, trolls can no longer destroy threads you do *not* wish to skip
b.No, not really. Imagine you've created a thread and don't wont porn-images in it. You simply hide all posts containing porn.
Again, the concept is not about moderation, it's about providing a convenient pre-filter for readers of the thread you've created. It's an additional option for those who care, not a must.
However, for "person x wished to discuss something with the community" kind of threads, he may create a filtered view of the thread for those who really are interested in the subject without getting distracted by trolling.
And..
a. Trolls trolling in troll-threads should be perfectly fine for everyone. If you don't like trolls, you skip a troll thread. However, trolls can no longer destroy threads you do *not* wish to skip
b.No, not really. Imagine you've created a thread and don't wont porn-images in it. You simply hide all posts containing porn.
Again, the concept is not about moderation, it's about providing a convenient pre-filter for readers of the thread you've created. It's an additional option for those who care, not a must.
Hiding posts from users you don't like might be something to try?
madus: rfm and th faq
Scamp:
The problem is that threads derail pretty fast, because feeding trolls is so deliciously easy, tempting and whatnot. In order to have this work, the original poster would have to keep an eye out, because nobody else can. Anybody with a bit of work ethic will not be able to keep an eye out through the rest of the day. Result? Ooh-la-la, off-topic arguments about Saddam Hussein ZX Spectrum demos in your serious thread! And people replied to it, hijacking the thread entirely! Filtering the thread down to your liking is likely to fail at that point.
And isolating trolls to their own threads is like feeling better about shocking images being put up on other urls. Don't click this, but you'll get the point: lemonparty.org. Trolls rarely are out to derail a thread, just to waste your time. whether you redistribute that to single threads or moderation is not helping.
It would be a nice perk for the anally retentive. But again, you would have to overhaul the bbs significantly (new post notification, this-or-that-many posts since last time) before such features will actually work out.
Quote:
However, for "person x wished to discuss something with the community" kind of threads, he may create a filtered view of the thread for those who really are interested in the subject without getting distracted by trolling.
The problem is that threads derail pretty fast, because feeding trolls is so deliciously easy, tempting and whatnot. In order to have this work, the original poster would have to keep an eye out, because nobody else can. Anybody with a bit of work ethic will not be able to keep an eye out through the rest of the day. Result? Ooh-la-la, off-topic arguments about Saddam Hussein ZX Spectrum demos in your serious thread! And people replied to it, hijacking the thread entirely! Filtering the thread down to your liking is likely to fail at that point.
And isolating trolls to their own threads is like feeling better about shocking images being put up on other urls. Don't click this, but you'll get the point: lemonparty.org. Trolls rarely are out to derail a thread, just to waste your time. whether you redistribute that to single threads or moderation is not helping.
It would be a nice perk for the anally retentive. But again, you would have to overhaul the bbs significantly (new post notification, this-or-that-many posts since last time) before such features will actually work out.