| |
|
Actually, people are starting to pile into the Head Shop with posts at present. One of the interesting and perhaps unpredicted results of this is that old, "dead" threads are being resurrected through Google searches. To look at, say “inclusion/exclusion”, we can see that a thread that had lain dormant for years has been revived, which is cool and good and happy.
Unfortunately, the responses also show some of the issues that I think we are going to be up against – the people involved have not read the FAQs (where an intermediary sign-on page might be useful – nobody ever reads the EULA, but you can at least then say “I told you so” and moderate with a clear conscience), or indeed the actual thread, but have bowled in with their own viewpoints (also with the awkward habit of stating very obvious basic principles that have been previously omitted because everybody already got them, and then saying “I hope that clears everything up and there will be no more argument.” Bless), which pay little heed to preceding discussion and tend to veer offtopic. I’m happy to try to get people to treat their own thinking and that of others with a bit more care’n’circumspection, but I’m afraid that in certain cases it’s not going to work.
More generally, pre-moderation sounds like a plan – maybe it just automatically goes to a Barbeloid who is logged in, so response is almost instantaneous – but a longer-term one.
On the Conversation – basically, I see the point of a proposed ban, but it seems a bit harsh. However, this is, perhaps, somewhere where a bit of moderation could be handy, in both senses. The worry, I assume, is that even the Conversation is not quite intended to function just like A.N. Other’s bulletin board. For example, the “Fade to Black” thread allowed members of Fade to Black to talk about poo while their own bulletin board was repaired. This seemed to be a nice compromise – it served a useful pastoral purpose, and demonstrated the cultural entente between the boards, but had a small footprint. Things get more awkward when, say, half a dozen people decide how great it would be to start talking about poo in another thread that is not about poo, or indeed to start a dozen threads on poo and contribute enthusiastically to all of them. Multiply this question by the number of potential new members, and we should at least take steps *in case* there is a problem. Hooever, keeping somebody out of the Convo for a month seems a bit harsh. However, I think it might be fair, for example, not to allow them to start new threads for a while (perhaps only in the Conversation, if only to avoid about eight zillion “Hi! I found this place through googling ‘the Invisibles’” threads… .
On elitism – ultimately, I agree with Deva, Aus and Tom, in different particulars, and feel that dizietsma, although hir concerns are valued, will have to adjust to the idea. We are already an elite in the sense that we have the money and time to interact using computers and the Internet. Within that, by not providing, say, a place where people can call each other ghey or start twelve-page arguments about who exactly is or is nor a fag we are not actually depriving people of any place in which to do this, as there are many other perfectly functional bulletin boards they could use, and plenty of out-of-the-box BBS creation tools. Barbelith is set up with a particular remit, as a Classic Cars or X-Men bulletin board might be – it is larger and more diffuse, but it still exists, and to a very great extent signing up is a tacit agreement of shared values and ambitions. Barbelith doesn’t owe you just because you joined it . |
|
|
