BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


State of the board at present

 
  

Page: 12345(6)

 
 
Ariadne
13:17 / 16.02.05
Well, my view is that it will inevitably cause problems to open the board BUT that it's worth it to see who else pops up, what new voices we can attract. I think an email registration system will put off too many people - lots of people will initially want to just post a one-off comment, but they may well stay and become valued posters. It doesn't take much to put people off - the right people as well as the 'wrong'.
We'd need a process for identifying trouble makers so that, if necessary, Tom can cull every now and then. Yes, it'll be a bit messy, but life is messy if you get brave and walk out your front door. I feel like we're hiding inside, too scared to go out for fear of who we might meet.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:33 / 16.02.05
But we know who we'll meet. It seems more like opening your house up, without any of the usual security measures any other house might have (in this case, any mechanisms for limiting multiple suits, any power for moderators to stop trolling by freezing or banning suits - the things that other boards have built into their functionality as a matter of course), and in the knowledge that your neighbours want to shit on your living room carpet for the rest of time. You can have Tom Paulin, David Bowie and the Pope having tea on your sofa and if someone is defecating on the carpet the conversation is unlikely to get very far.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:46 / 16.02.05


*Is it possible to have something automated that allows people to register/use PM's but not post for say,a month?

I imagine this would mean that most people who registred and did post would have a degree of involvement/engagement, otherwise they'd just get bored with waiting/register somewhere else...


*If the email reg is going to be the way this goes, we *need* more moderators, to handle the adminstrative work of checking/processing. Dependant on numbers, that's potentially very time-consuming stuff.


*I voted no pretty regretfully, as I do agree with many of the points made about new blood and opening up the discussion that have been made on this thread.

But I don't think that as it stands, we have the infrasctucture, technically or culturally, to deal with another large influx of new members.


*This might, if this place is to survive in some form, have to be accepted as a fallow/slow period.

We sit it out, and make plans with Tom *realistically* based on when there he might have time to fiddle with functionality and the distrib. moderation system/get to connecting with other techie people.


*Doing something because it's 'anything' isn't nccessarily a good thing. We might have to do nothing, in Big Action terms, but instead slowly build a plan/schedule for when tech changes are a possiblity.


*And yes, maybe this should have been happening over the last x months/years, but it hasn't been.

Not at the pitch it's at now, where people are actually making plans, suggestions, putting themslelves forward (yeah, and that includes me, I know)


*What else can we do? we can look at the culture of the place, and as a community/collection of indivuduals, have a go at that. The 'seminars' suggestion upthread is a good one, perhaps some other things that foster engagement/involvement. Hell, a game of Mafia does that, and we haven't had one of those for a while?

People who aren't happy with the quality of the place (and yeah, I'm talking to me as well here) can try as indivuduals to put something up the want to see


*But IMO this has to go alongside realisitc planning of future functionality/infrastructure changes, so it's leading somewhere.


*Tom upthread raised his feeling that there'd been a change in culture/priorities/expectations of moderators. Is this true?

Are we less bothered as a community by moderation than we were? Has the place changed to such a degree that the mod. roles need to change also?
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:57 / 16.02.05
And on the planning stuff, it not only has to be done, it has to be seen to be done.

Which is where I think Nina's criticisms of Tom are to an extent fair. We know you haven't got much time, we appreciate , many of us, that this place exists because of you, and that the legal buck stops with you.

But it can feel difficult to engage with you, and as you and many other people point out, much of what we're talking about here we need some input from you on.

We need to know you're there, but you also need us to have confidence in yr desire to work on this place. It seems that as you only turn up in these threads when they're getting spiky, you're already feeling you have to justify/remind us of this.

Whereas if you were a strucutred presence - even a very occasional one - this might take the heat out of this a bit?

Would it be unworkable for you to do a kind of 'surgery'/postbag P&H thread?

People post queries/suggestions/planning ideas - things that need your input, as opposed to discussions of say, the culture, which you can choose to join in on or not.

And, I don't know, once a month, you set aside a couple of hours to check it? As eg, in this thread it's been v.useful for me, at least, to have you say, 'look, nothing is going to happen before x month'

It might be useful for you as a 'snapshot' method of seeing the state of the place? And also help you and us to organise some sort of long-term planning where you don't feel like we're shouting at you do to everything tomorrow?
 
 
grant
14:04 / 16.02.05
I think we're less bothered by moderation nowadays to the degree that we all know each other.

---------

Spatula sed: The email system that's being proposed is largely similar to what already happens, which is: X wants to join Barbelith, X finds that membership is closed, X contacts Barbelith member off the board, Barbelith member points them to Tom, Tom grants membership.

Am I alone in thinking that this might be quite an effective system as it is?


I wonder if there's a design way to make this flow better -- like a link labeled "Register Here" that actually goes to a PM or email (registration@barbelith.com, barbreg@yahoo.com, whatever), with some sort of "put your email here" and "why do you want to talk here" blanks to fill in....

----------

I also had the random thought this morning on the way to work that the perception of stagnation might be due (in part) to the unchanging nature of the rainbow homepage design -- you never actually see new topics being generated unless you bother to check the forum. I often think to myself "Oh, Books, I never see anything in there," so I skip it on a daily basis -- then, like once a month or less, actually click through and find three or so conversations going on that I really wish I'd been following.

I have no way of telling if this is just me and my browsing habits (and stuff going on at work while I read). It *seems* like I ventured into Books more often when I'd see thread titles that caught my eye in the old, white-space design. But Things were also Different around my computer/desk/newsroom/life then.


-----
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:21 / 16.02.05
(ii) the board being comfortable with this power being in the hands of the moderators

You can't please all the people all the time- we need to weigh the options- are people more comfortable with one person being able to boot them? Because you're just a person like the rest of us and you have absolute power. There's a democratic question for everyone here- do they really like democracy or just the myth of it? We all know that you generally have rather long conversations with a number of moderators before you ban people anyway, it's just that the final decision lies with one man and only one man.

and (iii) whether it actually has any effect against people who can just create a new user-name faster than any distributed moderation process could boot them from the board.

Well that's the responsibility that the moderators have to take on and a problem that any board has to deal with. There's nothing unusual in this, it's the reason that most public bulletin boards have a banning function that extends to a number of administrators and it's not a good reason to restrict registration so that it's discriminatory and exclusive. Practically I understand why it's been done but it's probably time to at least know that we're trying to get away from that.

We need a policy so that people don't respond to troll posts- that way we can ban trolls after 3 strikes or so, when we're sure about them, if we don't respond we can delete the posts and the users with no problem without disruption to the flow of the thread.
 
 
charrellz
14:30 / 16.02.05
A couple ideas, though not quite perfect and more than likely hard to put into place:

1) If we go to total open registration, maybe limit the posts of new members. For instance, your first week here, you only get three posts a day. Week two you get five, etc. It may not stop trolling all the way, but it will slow the damage.

2) New members should have some sort of reference to get in. Something along the lines of a friend on the board, previous history on another board, hir personal website/blog. Then again, I wouldn't have gotten in under this system, so nevermind.

Again, I'm not giving these as gospel, just brainstorming.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:32 / 16.02.05
I also think that a lot of us don't want to put conditions on the accessibility of the board at the moment but realistically it's better to put in email registration and have some accessibility and more hoops to jump through than it is to have no accessibility.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:49 / 16.02.05
Well that's the responsibility that the moderators have to take on and a problem that any board has to deal with. There's nothing unusual in this, it's the reason that most public bulletin boards have a banning function that extends to a number of administrators and it's not a good reason to restrict registration so that it's discriminatory and exclusive.

Yes, Nina, except - and this is quite important - we don't have a banning function that extends to a number of administrators and we will not have one until, at the earliest, August. As such, it is not the responsibility that the moderators have to take on, right now - it is something about which the moderators can do nothing. You see? The moderators cannot ban suits. If the board was entirely open, banning woudl be meaningless anyway. The moderators cannot at present stop mass registrations, and neither can anything else. Barbelith's immune system is very weak - it depends on Tom being around, ready to identify or listen to others identifying trolls and prepared to delete suits. If he had time to do that assiduously enough to make a lunatic troll with a hundred spare suits' impact on the board minimal, he would have time to reengineer the board either to give moderators greater power or to add other levels of immune system to Barbelith.

Because Barbelith's immune system is so weak and so dependent on one person, who is not around enough, Barbelith has been placed in an antiseptic environment - the (largely) closed board. If we're now seeing that environment as harmful in itself, is it wise to tear open the bubble and let everything in, or to try to work out a way of providing access to nourishment, sunlight and fresh water, say, without also letting in all the viruses that led to the need for the bubble in the first place.

I don't understand the idea that "we need new blood" tallies directly to "we need to abolish all restrictions on entry to Barbelith, making it massively easier to get onto and act as one wishes in an unregulated fashion than it would be on pretty much any other message board on the Internet". Nor do I understand the idea of "if there is mass trolling, the moderators will just have to deal with it", when they obviously can't without the complicity of everybody else on the board, which it is simply not possible to gather. "I'm happy to deal with any problems" is a lovely statement of commitment, but it doesn't in itself make the mechanisms to be able to deal with problems exist, and nor does it give somebody the right to decide whether everyone else should have to deal with the problems of unrestricted entry as well. Likewise, "We need a policy so that people don't respond to troll posts" is a fine idea, but almost unworkable - have we ever successfully got everyone on Barbelith to agree at a given time that somebody is a troll and should be treated consistently? We've had moderators vetoing requests to delete posts and topics by known trolls before, and arguing for them to be taken back into the fold - what chance do we have of getting everyone on Barbelith to think "ah, it's a troll" simultaneously, and then not respond to it?

There are ways around that - for example, after a month of unrestricted access all the moderators could forward their "keep lists" of people who have contributed without trolling, and every other suit registered since could be deleted, but I suspect it's a lot of legwork and doesn't stop trolling in the interim...

GGM's surgery idea is a good one, though - maybe one day in the month where TC answers questions sent to him that he hasn't been able to respond to in the interim, in a thread in the Policy?

I think we're getting a lot of good ideas here - bring some new people onto the board, start building relationships between Tom and trusted members who can program in PHP and MySQL, consider the role of moderators - all of which can be discussed at greater length with an eye to creating, ultimately, a board which it is pretty easy to join automatically and pretty easy to administrate with or without Tom's day-to-day involvement. IMHO, opening up the board - tearing away the protective covering and letting everything hit the boad, burrow and breed simultaneously is not one of those good ideas, and might massively retard the successful progress of action on them.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:42 / 16.02.05
If Tom is saying that he expects loads of new members to join, wouldn't it take quite a while for moderators to check their email addresses?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
15:49 / 16.02.05
An email system would, presumably, result in a far smaller number of people trying to join than simply opening membership up - you're less likely to get many of the people who join but never post, for example, if they're required to do something more than just press a couple of buttons.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:31 / 16.02.05
Yes, Nina, except - and this is quite important - we don't have a banning function that extends to a number of administrators and we will not have one until, at the earliest, August.

Yes and I'm aware that I am presenting the argument for the ideal and not the immediate but I think we should be talking about what we want to do long term because if we don't it's not going to get done. We always talk about the short term and it's two years since I first had this conversation with any of you... which suggests to me that we have to extend the time period we're talking about. Two years ago we didn't know we were going to be in this position but in hindsight it's not that surprising- so we're only pushing for something now that would have been ideal months ago... there's no one to blame for that, hey I'm not trying to blame anyone for anything, circumstances change, I just want to think about the future of barbelith instead of focusing only on the present.

"We need a policy so that people don't respond to troll posts" is a fine idea, but almost unworkable - have we ever successfully got everyone on Barbelith to agree at a given time that somebody is a troll and should be treated consistently?

But Haus, we've never tried to have a policy because whenever we talk about having one people either deny that it could ever work on this board and then fail to agree on one. So think up three policies, get people to choose between them (democratic vote) and then make the moderators follow them or their powers get stripped. We need to treat people and trolls consistently. In reality we generally do agree- we've banned the Fetch for reference to Nazism, Modzero for attacking another poster consistently and Knodge for similar reasons. So: prejudice and hate-speech towards other posters and personal attacks sounds like the basis of an acceptable policy to me.

We muddle along fine - but hang on... we're not letting anyone new on to the board without personal recommendation. That's not muddling along.

We've had moderators vetoing requests to delete posts and topics by known trolls before

Yeah because we've never had a policy and we'd never had any trolls. I think we're clearer on the basis for banning now.

I do like grant's email registration idea by the way.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
16:41 / 16.02.05
Yeah because we've never had a policy and we'd never had any trolls. I think we're clearer on the basis for banning now.

Not so. There have been occassions in the past when, long after we'd defined a policy on the issue (which was/is delete and wipe every time he appeared), certain moderators who were as aware of Andrew's identity as everyone else said that they'd refuse to agree any action against one of his posts unless that particular post was abusive.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:58 / 16.02.05
Yes and we let them continue to be moderators despite defending someone who screwed with quite a lot of sweet and lovely people on this board which says a helluva lot about our failure as a community.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:04 / 16.02.05
If it's a moderation policy then moderators should have to follow it. If the policy needs to be revised then people should talk about it and revise it but deliberately refusing to follow it when someone is banned, not allowed here, has threatened people individually and made consistent and horribly biased comments is off and frankly we were weak and far too nice to those moderators. Sorry, I've just decided I'm not going to lie again and that's really what I believe. Those mods had the information, they decided not to support each other and behave in a pretty totalitarian manner, I think when I consider Andrew's behaviour, that they just didn't care about the abuse he ladled out.
 
 
Olulabelle
17:25 / 16.02.05
I think Grant's idea of email registration is excellent because if you can be bothered to explain why you want to join you're very unlikely to want to just join so you can write this site suxxx everywhere.

And a surgery would also help - Tom, to me is a very phantom figure and though I understand the reasons why it can get frustrating particularly because our hands are tied with regard to what we actually do with the board. It does sometimes feel a bit like being siblings deciding that you all wish to, say, bake a cake, but having to wait till Mum gets home in order for her to turn the oven on. And, more importantly, make sure you don't burn the house down.

I would also point out that I suspect there are many more people following this thread (and caring and seriously thinking about the state of the board) than are posting; Barbelith does tend to have a habit of already saying what you want to say, only far more eloquently. For example fundamentally on this issue I think along the same lines as Haus, only he thinks far more clearly and with more precise grammar than me!

I really feel that we should decide exactly what functionality we would change and make a proper concise list of it before we reopen the board and set ourselves up for potentially monumental hassle. If that means debating what we want in a thread, agreeing and then posting the agreed suggestion in a new thread so that the list is clear and consice instead of full of debate and conjecture, then I think we should do it that way. A proper wish list which is only added to after a democratic vote would help Tom see much more clearly our ideals for the board.

I also want to say that having only been a member for two years I don't have the same feeling of circular debate and boredom with other posters that many people here seem to have now. I think Bedhead and I joined at the same time, and he also (stop me if I'm wrong Bed) appears not to have this feeling of apathy. If called upon to take a more active role in the day to day running of Barbelith I would very happily do so. I don't have many moderation requests, I could easily take on more, even the stressy ones like Conversation and I wouldn't have a problem in checking email addresses or even assessing join requests - if fact I think that would be a very enjoyable and interesting task.

Grant said somewhere (there's so much everywhere all of a sudden that I can't find the quote) that the stripey non-changing front page doesn't help him and I absolutely agree. I have said this heaps already, but not having the top threads for each forum is really limiting if you don't have time to check through all the fora. For example there's a lovely, lovely thread in Headshop started by Sax about children which I would really have enjoyed contributing to. But it's so far along now I don't feel comfortable about suddenly chipping in. I only noticed it because of one of these policy threads and a comment by Alas and I feel sad that I wasn't involved in it from the beginning. If in my lunch hour I had looked on Lith and seen that subject as a top thread on the front page I would definitely have gone there instead of being side-tracked by something tangential to me in Conversation.

So FWIW my first vote for changing things would be to give us back the top thread functionality because I really think that we are likely to find that suddenly fora have many more contributions again. I think I'm right in assuming that Tom can do this himself and if this is the case, we are temporarily solving the problem of stagnation until such time as Tom is able to do more about complicated voting rights and serious coding.

And I'd really like to know what people think about doing that given a Yes or No choice.
 
 
Tom Coates
17:32 / 16.02.05
Grant's suggestion of a form which you fill in that goes to an e-mail address is entirely manageable and I think I could probably set that up not this weekend but the weekend afterwards if that's what people wanted. Since I'd have to send an invitation to them at their e-mail address they wouldn't then be able to fake it easily. You guys could just read what they had to say, quickly look to see if the e-mail address was from a reliable place. Once a week, pass me a list of names to send out an invitation to and I could then do it straight away.

W/R/T moderator policy stuff - I'd say a couple of things: (1) I've actually spent the last four years or so trying to get people carefully articulate what constitutes acceptable behaviour on the board and it's been pretty much impossible to reach a consensus on it and we've got some rough guidelines now, I guess, but pretty much every time we've thrown anyone out they've been dragged up again and fought around and people are continually arguing about them. If you think you can get enough of a consensus on these things, then feel free to try and I'll go along with the consensus that is reached. I do slightly resent the implication that this is a new idea though that hasn't been tried.

With regards to the moderators - the whole point of the distributed moderation system has been that above the most limited of stuff that everyone can agree is bad, moderators should be able to act in accordance with their instincts and sense of what is right, rather than toeing a party line. That's why the board is the way it is. If you want to change that, then again, that's worth discussion, but please don't treat it as an obvious solution that we're all just ignoring. These issues are complicated and are the cause of considerable debate, and I'm sure you'd get disagreement from some moderators about your position.

Basically I can't believe anyone around here is going to implement something because you state it to be obvious. You need to build a consensus here that we've not found easy to build in the past. Otherwise I could decide whose position is right by fiat and we could implement that, but I suspect that would infuriate you even more...
 
 
Loomis
18:15 / 16.02.05
I must confess that I'm starting to come around to Haus' position. It's essential that mods have the ability to freeze or ban trolls otherwise they'll have to delete 20 odd posts every single day from each troll suit until Tom is able to ban them. In my opinion that functionality should be top of the list for when Tom has time.

Mind you, making 10-20 more mods could also deal with that work in the short term.

In the meantime, I'm content for anyone with a unique email address to be allowed in, if that's how it has to be. But that should be the only thing they need; I disagree with anyone having to prove themselves with a written entrance exam. A little private school is it not?
 
 
Olulabelle
18:54 / 16.02.05
Loomis, I don't think anyone is deliberately suggesting a written entrance exam.

Question: Why do you want to join the board?

Answer: Because you guys all write interesting things/Because there's an ace thread in the headshop I want to post to/Because I've got a funny joke to post to the joke thread.
All = probably welcome.

It's the process that will hopefully root out deliberate trolls simply because they generally won't want to jump through a very little hoop not very far off the ground in order to register.
 
 
Loomis
19:27 / 16.02.05
I don't think that would deter a troll in the slightest. Persistent trolling does take some work after all. Saying you want to join because you like the content of the site is a bit like saying A=A in my opinion. Of course that's what they're going to say. Why add a condition that doesn't help but does seem an awful lot like testing?
 
 
Olulabelle
19:36 / 16.02.05
I guess maybe it could sound like a test if we worded it wrongly, but we wouldn't because we'd discuss it beforehand. My point is that it's not about content of the answer, only about making the effort to answer. I think most baby trolls we've had go away pretty quickly. We had a Quimper flurry, and then it's been quiet. (I'm a bit loathe to say that in case the sentence is like cheese is to mice, but still...)

Admittedly we've had our fair share of committed in-it-for-the-long-haul ones, but we've also had the ones that post a bit, make everyone go 'What the?' and then disappear and they are the ones who wouldn't bother to sign up with a system like that. The hardcore trolls manage somehow to join anyway and probably always will, whatever the 'trollwall'. That's why giving moderators the power to ban them would help.
 
 
Bed Head
19:37 / 16.02.05
But surely, it would slow down your determined troll. And, given that no-one but Tom can ban or freeze a suit, that’s really important. It’s just removing the automated aspect of registration. It serves a similar function to those boxes where you have to type out what the bendy letters and numbers are, to prove you’re a human being and not a bot. Except with a bunch of us volunteering to be on the other end to do that check, instead of a piece of code, and we’re only looking for a sentence or two that have been composed, rather than ones that have been cut-and-pasted a hundred times and all coming from the same place.

[aside] No, no apathy here. I’m a believer. And if there’s anything more I can do to help around the place, then I’d be very happy to do more to help around the place [/aside]
 
 
Sean the frumious Bandersnatch
19:44 / 16.02.05
The e-mail doesn't do much to deterr the smarter trolls, but it would cut down on the number of empty suits and people who would just post nonsense (the internet is full of them- coughquimper666cough) and clog up the board with threads like "du U kno who 8 teh pie?" and replies of "lol me!!"

The e-mail request would show that you can be legibile, somewhat intelligent, and might even have something to say. The kind of members we want should have no problem writing three or four sentences if they want to get in.
 
 
lekvar
19:48 / 16.02.05
A thought on opening the board via emailed request -

When I applied to Neurocam I was assigned three tasks: A short questionnaire with questions like "Do you naturally turn left or right," a short essay asking me to describe the events of a specific day between specific hours, with an emphasis on unusual activities, two pictures, one of the best moment of that day and the worst, and the whole thing had a deadline. Neurocam points out that their members are self-selecting, so I suspect that the assignments serve to determine whether or not the applicant can read and interpret instructions, that the submissions serve to weed 'bots, automatic registrations, and place a layer of protection against trolls.

We could adopt a similar regimen, in addition to the email-and-introduction suggested above.

We could set up a revolving set of short essays that prospective members need to submit before being allowed to join, or perhaps just request that they write a letter of introduction. This would serve multiple functions - keep trolls from registering hundreds of fiction suits and showing that the applicant has a willingness to express oneself. Now I'm not promoting any kind of judgment on the submissions unless it's composed entirely in 1337-speak or it's been obviously plagiarized.

The submissions could be reviewed by moderators, applicant advocates, or perhaps posted to a thread so that everybody could help weed out duplicates. An added benefit would be that at least some of the submissions would prove amusing.

Admittedly, this idea is pretty rough, and it could draw the tinfoil-hat crowd, but I think it work.
 
 
lekvar
19:51 / 16.02.05
Damn, that took me so long to write that it's already been addressed. Sorry.
 
 
doozy floop
20:09 / 16.02.05
I am a newbie and so please feel free to pay no attention to me, as I know I don't have as much experience of the board (and certainly no direct experience of the problems with trolls and such that have occured in the past), nor indeed do I have as much invested in it.

However, I'd like to chuck in my ha'penny's worth - particularly as this thread began while I was unable to register, and now, as you see, here I am.

It was indescribably frustrating reading over the debates as to whether to open the board again while I was desperately wanting to be 'let in', but I've been able to register (with Tom's blessing, I hasten to add - I'm nowhere near clever enough to find a sneaky way to register, if that's even possible). I have to say that, now that I've registered, finding a way in wasn't rocket science. It only required patience.

I've been reading the board relatively regularly for around 8 months and I'd say anyone who sticks around that long and really wants to join can work out a way to move towards that as things stand, as long as they don't mind waiting - and if you really want to join, there's plenty to read to keep you amused while you wait!

As regards a long term solution, I think supplying some sort of 'reason' for joining might be a good idea. Not a test, as everyone else is also keen to point out, but just something that can't be automated and would put off people who just want to be a pain. Well, it would put off *some* of them. I don't think it's much to ask if people have read the board and understand something of its ethos.

As for the logistics of that, I'm afraid I can only be supremely vague and unhelpful.

Anyway, that's my bit. I'm very happy to be here, by the way.
 
 
Bed Head
20:16 / 16.02.05
Wow. I’d like to order another dozen of these, please.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:05 / 16.02.05
Yeah, hi, Doozy.

I'm still in favour of opening, but that's starting to look a bit unworkable, and unpopular. The email thing sounds like a workable compromise (this doesn't alter my vote in the other thread, btw... I'm just going with the fact that it seems most likely to happen).

So my new question is this. Thus far, I've not been forwarding people to Tom, on the grounds that, although my gut feeling has been generally that they seem like "good" people, I don't know them personally and can't be sure they're not just being manipulative. Given that they (well, the one or two I think I still have in my inbox, anyway) have fulfilled the criteria for one of the more popular suggestions here- real email addys, etc... do I put them forward? I'd like to...

OFF-TOPIC- lekvar (I think it was lekvar anyway)... I have two days left in which to submit my Neurocam questionnaire thingy. Reckon I should? Is it worth it?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
23:38 / 16.02.05
What I've done when I've had people contact me about registering is tell them that they need to contact Tom through his email, and that they can find that in the wiki or on his site. It means a little more work for them given that it's not immediately obvious, sure, but it also means that I don't simply end up passing his email address onto people who he'd probably not want to have it.
 
 
lekvar
00:02 / 17.02.05
[Off topic]
Hell if I know. I was accepted on the basis of a fairly sketchy outline of the days events and a couple of quickish doodles. No one has contacted me wanting to know where to drop off the death ray yet.
Oops, I've said too much.
[/Off topic]

As to my suggestion, a couple addenda -
1) People are already lining up around the corner, and willing to wait long periods of time before being granted citizenship, and this is entirely contingent on Tom's willingness/ability/schedule. If we use some kind of application process with distributed vetting, we ease Tom's workload and have a moderated and controllable influx of new people. Anyone who is willing to wait a month for access is most likely going to be willing to speed the process by jumping through a potentially amusing hoop, and the people willing to write a letter of introduction, statement of purpose, or whatnot, is more likely to be an active, contributing member.

2) I'm under the impression that Barbelith is already considered elitist yet people are still wanting to get on, so why not ask them to prove their tenacity with a paragraph that proves that they're a person and not a cabbage or something? Once again, not a serious barrier to entry since Barbelith was conceived in the spirit of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, just means to separate people who really want to be members from idle surfers in the grip of whim. I wouldn't consider a well-thought-out paragraph or a half-hour of a prospective member's time to be too much to ask.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:03 / 17.02.05
Actually, that works... I kind of figured I didn't wanna burden Tom with it, but it seems like that's probably the way to go, and Tom doesn't seem particularly averse to that, judging by his comments today... tomorrow, when I'm less drunk (and less ANGRY about off-board things) I'll email them.
 
 
Tom Coates
06:30 / 17.02.05
I think the core of this for me is that my workload in the short term is kept to a minimum. The more we can distribute this around, the more actual stuff I can do for you guys that no one else can - ie. I can do submission forms and stuff and set up e-mail addresses and the like if I'm not going to be personally bombarded every ten minutes.

The suggestion would be that you guys collate a list of people (like an actual text list of e-mail addresses written down, each on a separate line) you think sound reasonable and chuck it to me once a week or once a month, rather than on an ad-hoc basis. I'll then get to it ASAP (accepting that sometimes I'll have to go to a conference or go on holiday and stuff). That way, I can do all the work at one sitting.

In the meantime if anyone has people they actually want to get on the board quickly, then choose someone to write me the list and send them all the e-mail addresses via private message. Then get that person to send the list to me and I'll have em all invited. Standard rules apply - if you suggest someone who ends up being an arse then everyone will get very cross with you...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:16 / 17.02.05
How's that? Turns out doozy floop is in fact the person I still had in my inbox, who I was just about to contact as per my above post! (so to speak) Turned out nice again.
 
  

Page: 12345(6)

 
  
Add Your Reply