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

Underground > Policy & Help >

Should we Reopen the Board?

Page: 1 2(3)4

Murray Hamhandler

17:24 / 16.02.05

Oh good god yes, already.

17:38 / 16.02.05

YES

17:45 / 16.02.05

Can i Just state again to keep this simple (no offence to Our Lady) that we should keep this poll nice and simple: YES TO FULL BOARD OPENING or NO TO FULL BOARD OPENING. As far as I'm concerned the latter option includes the possibility of opening up registrations via an e-mail based system and including the moderators in that. But we need to keep it simple and clear. If you think that a system that brings people in via the e-mail approach is the right one, write:

NO - or NO to full board opening.

If AFTER that you want to express a preference towards the e-mail thing or not, please feel free to do so, but the core issue here is do I just open the gates or not. Once we've got that decision out of the way we can move on to the specifics of the e-mail situation.

Again, I will state - if people want the gates opened on Saturday, then I need people to propose a clear structure by which if people don't like how it's going, we can turn off new members again. I don't really care how that's done, but I'm not going to open the doors until I know under what circumstances you might want them shut again. That is to say I'm not going to arbitrate - if fifty people send me e-mails saying the board should shut its doors again then I will ignore them because I will have to work on the assumption that another number will want them left open and I'm not able to get into a debate about it. I'm also not going to act by fiat - not because I don't reserve the right to do so, but because I'll be too bloody busy over the next month or so to be able to assess the problem properly - I need you guys and the moderators to discuss between you how such a decision might be made and to appoint one person who can represent your decision to me. I will then implement this decision when that person tells me to. I would STRONGLY suggest that you consider this to be a decision in which the moderators have a heavy presence or role, if only because if everything goes to crap then they're the ones who are going to be dealing with it.

18:20 / 16.02.05

Reluctant NO TO REOPENING BOARD.

Only because I think there are suddenly more arseholes out there that want a pop at folks like us than people realise. Think Dan Rather and all those nasty little Nazi gonks that took him out.

18:20 / 16.02.05

No.

18:44 / 16.02.05

Another reluctant NO for full opening. I DO have a preference for the email thingy.

It would be nice to have new blood, but...I don't want to end up reading threads filled with one person conversing with themself, and patting themself on the back for their undisbuted genius because there are no restrictions on membership. There has to be some controls in place.

miss wonderstarr

18:49 / 16.02.05

No.

I can't believe that anyone voting "yes" is in a position of responsibility here, and aware that they're going to have to deal with the consequences of entirely open registration.

It's fine to blithely say "O yes we need new blood and excitement", but if you check out most message boards for their typical content, you will realise that opening to that type of user would not bring in new blood and excitement, but new banality and excrement.

I don't believe I have ever seen Haus talking anything but sense on here, and his post on p1 is entirely persuasive.

Sean the frumious Bandersnatch

19:16 / 16.02.05

***CHANGING VOTE***

NO

I just read the rest of the other thread and I've been convinced to the contrary. The e-mail idea, when worked out to a managable system, is much better.

20:21 / 16.02.05

I've been convinced by others' arguments to vote 'No'.

20:23 / 16.02.05

No to fully opening Barbelith, though I would like to see a brisker flow than we have now.

21:20 / 16.02.05

no.

Matthew Fluxington

22:21 / 16.02.05

Yes. But the damage is done, I'm afraid...

Matthew Fluxington

22:24 / 16.02.05

Once again I'll point out that there are almost no restrictions whatsoever on Ilxor, and they have very few problems and attract a wide range of very good writers from around the world who engage in thoughtful but not overly dour debate every day of the week. The looseness of that forum is half the reason why I'm not very active over here lately - that place feels vital and alive, things feel dead here and I'm no longer invested enough to try to get things shaking on my own. I don't even feel like I know most of you anymore.

Matthew Fluxington

22:28 / 16.02.05

Just a question - who do people really expect to join Barbelith at this point? Will it really make that much of a difference? Even though I'm voting yes, I'm kinda skeptical about it cos I think we've already scared off a lot of people with this exclusivity, and the content here probably isn't going to pull people away from their involvement in other places like Ilxor, Dissensus, etc.

23:25 / 16.02.05

ILX isn’t googleable, is it? People find it in other ways, by following links for example. It's a different kind of exclusivity, being just a little harder to find. And that’s one of the problems I have with the ‘fling the doors wide’ attitude, that we seem to be *very* visible on google.

05:23 / 17.02.05

No

wembley can change in 28 days

06:29 / 17.02.05

Totally Open? No.

10:42 / 17.02.05

No to totally open.

I originally posted Yes, but I think the proposed email requests and recommendations idea is a lot better suited.

14:17 / 17.02.05

REVISED VOTE

No to totally open

Yes to email system.

14:18 / 17.02.05

I think people that have changed their minds should move to delete their original post. Otherwise it's just going to get horridly confusing.

15:18 / 17.02.05

Yes.

Spyder Todd 2008

16:05 / 17.02.05

No to totally open, yes to revised process so people who rock can still join.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

18:55 / 17.02.05

Moved to delete my original post and am now voting a No.

(Largely because of reading olulabelle's thread in Convo- now I've actually got an illustration of the practicality, this seems like a nice compromise).

Jack The Bodiless

19:19 / 17.02.05

No.

The board isn't built for distributed moderation on the scale we're talking about, and Tom's already said that if it goes tits up, the moderators are effectively on their own to deal with it. And as the Log Lady has said, the moderators don't have the power to police the board properly (in the way that would be needed) without Tom's constant assistance. I'd love to see the board opened up - I might post regularly again if Barbelith was rejuvenated.

We'd get a lot of valuable tourism if we reopened the beaches again, and the town's ailing businesses could sure do with some of that out-of-town money - and I'm sure we can live with a few holiday drunks making fools of themselves here and there. But there are sharks in these waters. You think Brody, Quint and Hooper can handle them on their own?

Jake, Colossus of Clout

19:20 / 17.02.05

No. I like this board because of the quality of the discussion and people here. There are no halfwits, cronies and trolls here. it should stay that way.

20:08 / 17.02.05

I want to see the board more open, but if it's a question of opening it up without moderators having ban power, or at least temporary "sin bin" power, or a chat option first, no. It's hard enough to get people banned at the moment when we are theoretically "closed".

We really, really need some sort of ban ability that's not dependent on Tom. It's been said numerous times across all sorts of threads, but I don't care, I'm going to repeat it here. Mods need to be able to ban or temp ban, full stop, no argument whatsoever.

Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!

20:09 / 17.02.05

There are no halfwits, cronies and trolls here.

Hahahaha...

*wipes tears from eyes*

But, seriously, both the closed option and the email option seem painfully elitist to me, but if I were to choose one option OTHER than open, I'd say closed. I've ADSL and they don't provide me with an email address. I've used the same web-based email address since summer 1994.

Basically, the email option is supporting the exclusion of any members in low income brackets, and I think that's an appalling idea. (Not the least because I would have been excluded by the email option)

But then, that's me.

I understand that the mods and Tom are only able to cope with so many trolls and so much work removing their bullshit. But if it's a question of functionality, then the question shouldn't be put to us, but should be decided by the people working to keep this place going. However, if this is a vote on the policy of exclusion, I'm upset by the current standings.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:09 / 17.02.05

Basically, the email option is supporting the exclusion of any members in low income brackets, and I think that's an appalling idea. (Not the least because I would have been excluded by the email option)

That's a very good point - I would not be able to provide a working ISP email address either. On the other hand, your ADSL connection costs as much or, in fact, a bit more than any number of ISP email-providin' accounts, right? So, is it low-income or just non-ISP-email havin'? Especially with the option for people who don't have them to point to, e.g. a familiarity with other people on Barbelith, activity on other boards, a blog or other...

Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!

00:34 / 18.02.05

Still would have been excluded. I don't blog, didn't know any Barbeliods, and don't tend to post to any other boards.

Things like this are what make me iffy about email registration. I (and people more interesting) would have been turned away, and I wouldn't have met and sung karaoke with the three local 'lithers, which was excellent fun. I just think people would be missing out, which I'd rather not have.

07:06 / 18.02.05

I totally understand your feelings on this, and basically agree. The problem is only one of identity management. Basically we want to feel relatively comfortable that someone who wants to join the board is one actual real-world person and not a well established troll that has just signed up for a free Yahoo account, or an existing board user who wants an extra user name or - bluntly - someone who might come on with the absolute best of intentions, but then be able to sign up many more user names because there's no restrictions in this area etc. etc.

I think it's clearly true that not letting people use free e-mail addresses does restrict the access to lower income brackets. Then again, it being a site on the internet also restricts that access. Finding an appropriate balance between keeping the board as open as possible and keeping the community relatively high quality, un-trolled and unspammed upon is a tremendously difficult problem, and I can't see us finding a perfect solution. The question is, I guess, is this solution less imperfect than the others we have available...

07:12 / 18.02.05

Another bit of stats here to try and explain the problem. Checking the last 30 days of log information that we have, there have been around 2500 requests for the register page on Barbelith. In the last month.

Now I'm not going to say that each one of those people would have registered and started posting. But it does seem clear that a good proportion would have done, and I don't honestly think that Barbelith could handle upwards of a hundred new members a month...

09:04 / 18.02.05

No on totally open. But I'm not sure about the email filtration system...

12:12 / 18.02.05

No on the totally open.

As I remember the last time new members were admitted a lot of people would post once (usually something offensive) and then never darken our door again.

The waiting before you post thing seems like a plan, as does Oula's email filtration.

12:17 / 18.02.05

been brought out into the sunshine of posting from the darkness of lurking cause I have got a suit and I read alot of Barbelith...

... for what my opinion counts for I say No , don't open the doors

so for clarity my answer is NO but the recommendations idea does sound like a way forward...

12:31 / 18.02.05

No to total opening.

Dig the invitation-only concept though.

Page: 1 2(3)4