h a l f b a k e r yThe mutter of invention.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Black Ball
Make the HB a democracy. If we could only... | |
I know this is gonna be contraversial, but here goes.
I realise that as arbiter of all things, jutta retains the right to close anyone's account if she so wishes. However, in the interests of free speech and the libertarian values so frequently espoused herein, this rarely happens. And anyway, what's
the point, cos they could just set up a new account, right?
Well what if there was a concensus from a majority that someone should be ousted? How do we achieve this without it being more work for jutta (apart from may be some initial coding (sorry jutta))?
I propose the 'Black Ball', in addition to the croissant and fishbone. A Black Ball vote would go against the poster of the idea (I know there is a post on voting for users, but this is substantially different). You can only black ball a user once (not once for every idea) but it seems easier to put it on the idea that causes the consternation. If the Black Ball count reaches a suitably high figure, say 20, the user is automatically deleted.
yes they could keep setting up accounts, but should they keep pissing off the rest of the HB crowd they'll soon get blackballed again.
Conversely, if they decide that they'd really like another chance, they can enter the HB under a new guise, and bid farewell to there previously irksome habits, thus not incurring the wrath of the HB fraternity, and allowing them to participate in this wonderful thjing we have anew.
And whatever he thinks, this is not a personal attack on GTT. However, he obviously inspired this one.
Slashdot Moderation
http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml
A more flexible version of users judging other users [hello_c, Feb 04 2002, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Someones feathers may get ruffled |
|
| |
Lets the screwballs have their moment I say, you can always ignore them. (even if that level of self-control can be quite difficult) |
|
| |
There would be a risk of a malicious user creating false accounts and getting a blameless innocent thrown off. Anything automatic like that is dangerous; I think you need some kind of moderator, editor, or god to make that kind of decision. |
|
| |
I see what you mean pottedstu. May be we need to vote in an HB jury first...(stands back as lights another blue touch paper) |
|
| |
The desire to "delete" all unacceptable persons or ideas is generally regarded as being contrary to freedom of speech and liberatarianism and all that jazz. After all, being popular doesn't actually make something/someone *right*. |
|
| |
I wouldn't mind having my input removed from the system. (To a certain point, anyway; I still reserve the right to toss anyone I just plain don't like.)
An elected/nominated jury seems like one way of keeping fraud out (the other one is me checking on access patterns). |
|
| |
Independently, it would be nice if the person getting thrown off had a warning. |
|
| |
We're not limiting people's rights to free speech in the sense of democracy; they're still free to make themselves heard. But I think we do have a right to throw out people from our specific environment that we don't want to listen to here or draw attention to. |
|
| |
Hm. The main idea is too dangerous, as 'stu indicated. But the freedom of speech argument is just rubbish. That one really bugs me. |
|
| |
jutta's jury sounds intriguing. If there is any indication of developing this idea further, I hereby nominate DrBob. I believe the good doctor is appropriately fair minded and tolerant. |
|
| |
Another approach would be to use a percentage of 'active' users (as opposed to a fixed number). |
|
| |
See the Slashdot code & annotations for the results of one users-judge-each-other site. (I think b/2 has vastly better commentary, but don't know if Slashdot was about the same when about as old or as big.) |
|
| |
If I were a troll and blackballs were possible, under this idea as described, I'd script something to create a lot of logins - perhaps age some of them artificially; a few postings of "Custard!" or "Oo, [longest word from title], clever" apiece - and then I'd go on a rampage of blackballing the existing posters faster than real humans could blackball me. |
|
| |
Jutta would, then, have to write immune-system code, e.g. allotting blackballs only to human-chosen trusted people. Which might be easier than doing the blackballing herself. |
|
| |
The troll MUST be given an ample and fair warning. Would this be by means of a special nic assigned to an otherwise anonymous "Forebaker" voted into place by whatever means who is able to create a second account for this purpose and this purpose only?
Would [marked–for–warning] ("Forebakers" search term and 'responsibility to see after - jutta has enough to do) be appropos on any 1/2 bakers or a selected group of 1/2 bakers behalf?
How many executioners, I mean 1/2 bakers would it take to form a quorum?
I must emphasize that jutta is not trigger-happy. By way of example, I've learned quite a bit about differentiating between knee-jerk reactions and finding a kernel of truth which can sprout into something productive. Then there are those trolls who sing a pretty song from time to time then reveal their true colours by dropping eggs on the bakers craniums. Some seem to be carrying a miserable childhood with them from their nest.
I personally believe process should be as democratic as possible - keeps it from being a clique. This is a great, great place and after all is said and done, the goal is to keep it that way for one and all. |
|
| |
// allotting blackballs only to human-chosen trusted people // |
|
| |
Which is in essense the jury concept. |
|
| |
Or 'essence', the English spelling. <grin> |
|
| |
Jutta, booting someone from the .5bakery is not restricting their free speech. They're able to be heard...they just have to go find their own soapbox. You're not required to let them use yours. |
|
| |
That said, I'm staying neutral on this one... |
|
| |
instead of deleting, how about you can just set a limit for how many black balls a user can have before all their ideas and comments are ignored by you? |
|
| |
ironfroggy, that's possible using current filtering. |
|
| |
I don't like the implications of this idea at all. Instead of making the site more democratic, it would make it simply more brutishly competitive / comparitive / class oriented and distort things. Keep the voting enhancements (methods to separate classes and cliques) to a minimum, and you'll keep the democracy happy and minimize the bandwagon.
Also thought about a 'newbie-journeyman-veteran status thingy, but I dislike 'blogs that show counts of the number of annotations a person makes; gives too much respect and work to veterans, and too little to newbies. I like the fact that it takes a few clicks to figure out what a particular person is all about. |
|
| |
I see that in 02/2002 the idea of a jury was floated. |
|
| |
I always thought it would be fun to be Perry Mason with a little bit of Rockford / Columbo thrown in. |
|
| |
If we go to a jury system I'll act as the defense on a pro bono basis as required. |
|
| |
We will similarly appear as the Persecuting, sorry Prosecuting Counsel. |
|
| |
"We have found a witch, may we burn her ?" |
|
| |
The HB is far too important to be taken this seriously. |
|
| |