BARBELITH underground
 

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


Should we Reopen the Board?

 
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
07:05 / 16.02.05
Simple yes/no only please. I'll try to tot up the numbers Saturday morning.

I'm voting yes.
 
 
---
07:26 / 16.02.05
Yes.
 
 
_Boboss
07:44 / 16.02.05
yes, with apologies in store should it all go up-titsss.
 
 
diz
07:49 / 16.02.05
yes, with fingers crossed
 
 
sleazenation
07:50 / 16.02.05
I am voting no because we do not yet have the functionality built into the board to appropriately deal with all the rigours a fully opened board would entail.
 
 
Bed Head
07:53 / 16.02.05
Another no. There are better solutions available than just ‘fling the doors wide, slam them shut again.’
 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:01 / 16.02.05
I say yes. There are better solutions but Tom never has the time to institute any of them. I'm about to post more about this in the other thread but I agree with Gumbitch. We need to be practical about this and work with what we've got.
 
 
Spaniel
08:04 / 16.02.05
No, 'cause opening the doors for a couple of days before they're slammed closed will change nothing except the amount of work moderators have to do. I like the idea in principle, however, I just think that we need filters and safeguards in place.

Also, Tom has suggested a good interim alternative.
 
 
madfigs #32, now with wasabi
08:07 / 16.02.05
No.
 
 
Ariadne
08:15 / 16.02.05
Yes.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:17 / 16.02.05
I vote no, in terms of the question, for the reasons I have given elsewhere - Tom has suggested a mechanism he *does* have time for for letting new people onto the board:

There are - of course - loads of ways that we could handle this registration process without completely opening the doors. We could - for example - post up something that said something to the effect of "Barbelith is closed to new members at the moment - but if you've got a really good case for why you feel you shoudl be a member, chuck us an e-mail to this e-mail address". We could then have that e-mail address go to all the moderators, and they could chat to the people concerned to make sure that they're roughly who they say they are (ie. only limit to e-mail addresses being that it's either a work or a university or non-free e-mail address that indicates that they're vaguely identifiable by it). People chuck me a list once a week, and I'll send them an invitation e-mail.

which allows for a more gradual introduction of people with some engagement with the board. Opening the board unconditionally will just mean another year of dealing with insane trolling, which will be made more complicated by Tom not being around to delete suits.

So, open the board completely, if you want, if and when:

a) Somebody or bodies who are not Tom are given the power to freeze or kill suits.
b) Every banning will not immediately be challenged by the same troll in a different suit, with a rally of gullible Barbeloids muddying the waters around him with cries of "fascists!"
c) A mechanism exists at the registration stage to prevent mass registration of suits by one determined troll.

If you can't fulfil those basics, the board should not be opened unconditionally. Otherwise we probably get obsessive trolling targetting the people who have been here longest and dealt with it the most, who will have no power to prevent it and no guarantee that anyone with the power to prevent it will be around any time soon. Right now our chief troll has been reduced to trying to trick people out of their passwords. Unless he has developed a life in the last month and a half (last recorded attempt to break into Barbelith 29.12.04, remember?), the moment the board opens unconditionally that ceases to be the case within about ten minutes, and we have a year plus of multi-suit trolling to deal with. So, I vote for trying out Tom's proposed solution.

On a side note, I'm not wildly happy about the way this "referendum" has been declared. Is it expected that Tom should be bound by the numerical majority at the stroke of midnight on Friday? Or is this envisaged as just an opinion poll?
 
 
Sax
08:22 / 16.02.05
Erm, undecided. I can see the benefit of having new blood, but I'd like the existing blood to post more.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
08:25 / 16.02.05
Yes
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:35 / 16.02.05
A sad and regretful No, for pretty much the reasons outlined by Haus.
 
 
Loomis
08:36 / 16.02.05
Yes.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:36 / 16.02.05
Hang on Tom has no time so how the hell can he expect any of us to actually have the time to talk to people and ensure they're worthy? Do you have that kind of time Haus? I sure don't.

I'm sorry but you cannot be the only person with the right to ban members and never post on the board. This is completely absurd- I want hard evidence that Tom is actually reading the threads and understanding what's happening here before I trust his opinion on whether we should open the place up. All he's done so far is quote numbers- I don't trust government statistics or BBC polls so why would I regard any given out here as representative?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:59 / 16.02.05
Hang on Tom has no time so how the hell can he expect any of us to actually have the time to talk to people and ensure they're worthy?

I don't think worthiness was the issue, was it? They send a request, we check that the email address they are using is an ISP-based, academic or paid-for (so, an @livejournal.com address would work, I imagine) one, that is one that can be traced to an actual human being, and forward the address to Tom. In cases where somebody has no such email address, and does not know anybody on Barbelith who can vouch for them, but would really like to join, we can maybe think about worthiness, but that's not necessarily a large number.

Right now you can put anything you want in the fields when registering, which means that you can robotically register 500 suits in an afternoon, which means that who has the power to ban becomes increasingly academic, as people can reregister immediately/work through a vast number of spare suits. As such, I don't really understand why you seem to be simultaneously saying that the power to ban has to be extended beyond Tom for the board's unconditional opening to work and that the board should be opened unconditionally even if nobody except Tom has the power to ban.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:59 / 16.02.05
All he's done so far is quote numbers

This is neither true nor fair. He has posted at some lenght on the other thread on why we are in the situation we're in, what might be done about and what it is currently possible to do.
 
 
Spaniel
09:05 / 16.02.05
Not in here, kids.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:09 / 16.02.05
Really?

We could then have that e-mail address go to all the moderators, and they could chat to the people concerned to make sure that they're roughly who they say they are

I think that's an interesting way to read that sentence (sorry Bobossboy, sorry everyone).

And yes he has elaborated on the numbers posting but mostly about the amount of people reading the pages, the number of posts appearing. I don't think he's addressed the content of the board, the fact that a significant number of those readers can't post if they wish to.

We'd better PM or take this to the other thread from now on. Sorry again, don't mean to rot or be offensive, just don't want to be so nice that I lie.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:10 / 16.02.05
Simple yes/no only please.

Another partial success.
 
 
Haus of Mystery
09:11 / 16.02.05
Simple yes/no indeed...as if that could ever happen.

Umm.. tentative YES on my part - viva change.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:21 / 16.02.05
Way-ull - the simple yes/no answer is something I'm pretty dubious about too, to be honest. What's being asked there is, in effect, that the minimum possible engagement with the question - a single word - is provided, and nothing more. Add to that that the links in the Conversation did not point directly to, for example, Tom's proposed intermediate course of action, which is ignored by this poll, and I'm unsure of the utility of this process. Are we expecting people to have read the discussion in the other topic? Should the other topic now be purely about whether or not to open the board (unconditionally), and not the state of Barbelith more generally? Are we looking for a gut-reaction "yes" or "no"? Does it matter how long somebody has been here or how much they have contributed, or indeed how much they understand about how Barbelith functions? Is a simple majority expected to be binding?

Nina - I suggest you ask Tom what he had in mind. My confusion remains, however:

I don't really understand why you seem to be simultaneously saying that the power to ban has to be extended beyond Tom for the board's unconditional opening to work and that the board should be opened unconditionally even if nobody except Tom has the power to ban.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:23 / 16.02.05
Haus: I've asked for the summary to be changed based on your unhappiness. I'm just trying to be helpful in all this, I didn't mean to sound like I was going to kick down Tom's door and demand change, more trying to get a sounding for board opinion. Can you and Nina take your discussion back to the other thread please?
 
 
nedrichards is confused
09:25 / 16.02.05
No. For the Haus defined reasoning.
 
 
Baz Auckland
09:54 / 16.02.05
Yes.
 
 
Tom Coates
10:54 / 16.02.05
I'll state again - me giving moderators the ability to ban people is not an option because as I have stated a number of times before - this would require new functionality which I am unable to build and there is no one else to build it.

With regards to this:
Hang on Tom has no time so how the hell can he expect any of us to actually have the time to talk to people and ensure they're worthy? Do you have that kind of time Haus? I sure don't.

I'm actually stunned by this. I thought your point was that the power needed to be devolved because I didn't have time to do things. If you're saying because I don't have time to do things then I shouldn't dare suggest that a large group of moderators take up some of the strain between them, then I think we're at an impasse. I'm actually quite angry about this - you give me a hard time about not having enough time to make this community what you want, and then refuse to actually take up a share of that workload?

And if you don't have time to check people's e-mail addresses to check they're not just free e-mail addresses, then what the hell makes you think you're going to have time to look after the board and resolve any problems? There's this implication in what you're saying that I'm being lazy - after getting this place started, maintaining it through several technical failings, redesigning it, getting it rebuilt with a distributed moderation core, and paying half of the bills for the last SIX YEARS, you're telling me that I'm being lazy!?
 
 
Tom Coates
10:55 / 16.02.05
So I'm voting no for unrestrained access at the moment. I'd rather try some other mechanism and if that doesn't work well enough we can always open up the board fully in three months time.
 
 
Tom Coates
10:59 / 16.02.05
And with regards to whether I feel bound by this vote, I will go along with it if people vote for opening. But I will do so only if there is an agreed structure for determining if people want to keep it open or whether they want to close it again.

And I should point out that I simply will not have time to deal with troll problems from people if they start coming in. You'll have to deal with all that stuff yourselves.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
11:08 / 16.02.05
No.
 
 
Axolotl
11:15 / 16.02.05
I'm going to have to go with no for unrestrained access (but a yes for the access via an e-mail request plan).
 
 
A
11:38 / 16.02.05
Yes. I think we're tough enough to handle a worst-case-scenario influx of yahoos.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
11:50 / 16.02.05
yes.

I'm worried about moderators getting work overload, though.
[a given in boards that are OK with fiction suits/nicks]
 
 
The Strobe
11:59 / 16.02.05
No. For any number of reasons.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
12:12 / 16.02.05
Yes, but on condition that their sponsor completes 22 posts 1st. Each new user cadet would be assigned a random sponsor, and that sponsor must post 22 times before his padawan gets full access.
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply