| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Well, after another few weeks of .debate, I'm really really thinking I'm
> just going to abandon it, and honestly, more and more, I'm feeling it's
> a waste of Lugnet resources to have it. There are two constantly
> recurring shouting matches:
>
> - Scott vs Larry (and sorry folks - as they always say, it takes two to
> tangle [though I do have an opinion as to who has consistently provided
> worthwhile contribution to .debate])
I'll take some culpability here, I'm a sucker for trying to show up the
clueless, and no matter how many times I swear it off, it's just too
tempting... he's just so cluelessly annoying when he wants to be. (but he
CAN be a good contributor when he wants to be too... I've seen it actually
work once or twice) The same is true of me, but, as Frank alludes, in vastly
different proportions, I suspect.
<snip>
Christianity... well Steve Thomas seems up to something interesting, at
least for starters and he's posting slowly.
> If anyone has any ideas for how to make .debate something worth
> participating in, I'd love to hear them.
I'm of half a mind to say... get rid of it completely, then ruthlessly quash
any debating that breaks out in other groups. I'm not sure I see the safety
valve as actually working.
What I would suggest instead (and yes, this is a crutch to give willpower)
is some sort of "governor" scheme... to prevent wildfires. I dunno if it's
worth the effort to implement it but here are a few variants: (None are
perfect, in fact many have holes I can spot, they're thought starters)
- Allow one post per x hours per person... enforced by allowing only members
to even post and only when they are signed in and using the web interface,
so there cannot be any spoofing. This slows growth and by limiting posts,
requires people to think about what they say as they have a "time limit" of
sorts.
- Thread depth restriction... when a thread root has 20 branches, stop it
from accepting any other posts, coupled with a restriction of only one new
thread start per person per X days. This also slows growth and has the
advantage of keeping tree view working, .debate is the worst forum from the
perspective of proportion of threads so large that tree view doesn't work.
- moderator with preview, moderated by someone (or a rotating committee)
held in high regard for impartiality who disallows posts that are
"repetitive" or "non substantive", with no appeal.
- Moderator but with a thread focus, the moderator monitors thread starts
and stops threads from starting that are repetitive.
There are probably other permuations of moderating.
One permutation is self moderation. Allow people who have posted recently to
"disallow" someone from posting for a cooling off period if a majority vote
requires it. Or permanently?
The question is, are any of these worth the development effort on Todd's
part vs. just killing the thing? I would argue that some of this stuff is
reusable elsewhere but I dunno how reusable.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed to voice your opinions. Sorry, Larry, I can't agree with that. (...) ...giving an automatic "last word" to the person who squeaks in under the post limit. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) Only post via the web interface? NO THANKS. I've posted maybe a total of 5 times via the web interface (and only because I was in a training class, not on any of my computers). Broken. (...) Then people would just watch the branches to make (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| You forgot one moderating method: Use the password checker, and only accept messages which passes a certain limit of security (or a modified version of the checker, with a specialized dictionary). Seriously, if you have a group with 'free speech', (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) Larry, you really are a conceited. I'm happy for you to refer to me however you want - as I am pretty thick skinned. The positions I adopt are, often, more about educating myself than spamming this group with my philosophy on life, the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Uselessness of .debate
|
| Well, after another few weeks of .debate, I'm really really thinking I'm just going to abandon it, and honestly, more and more, I'm feeling it's a waste of Lugnet resources to have it. There are two constantly recurring shouting matches: - Scott vs (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
