| |
|
Provisionally:
I think limiting members to five posts a day would stop a certain sort of trolling, and certainly curtail endless content-less posts, but it’s not going to stop a provisional member the application process has let in making an inflammatory comment, or two, or three, which would still represent a significant drain on moderator and casual member attention unless it’s going hand in hand with an established method of dealing with problematic posters (suit-freezing, greater restraint, etc).
Second, I think the transition process would need to be very clearly set in place, plus an outline of the criteria for the distinction between junior and senior members. Is this going to be decided by length of time on the board, number of posts, or just those “we” trust? Who’s going to decide, now and in the future, who’s trustworthy? One of the things about the structure of the board and distributed moderation in particular that appeals is the sense that each member is functionally equal (some with added responsibilities) and that they’ll be judged for better or worse on the quality of their contributions. Respectfully Tom, and with appreciation for what you’ve said about being unable to spend the time and energy here that you used to, and for what you still do, some of this feels like it’s designed to cover for flaws elsewhere in the structure, such as the applications process, where despite best efforts the wrong people are still getting in and we don’t appear to have sufficient, independent powers in place to get rid off them again quickly. I’m not in anyway trying to be dismissive of these proposals, but personally I don’t think they’ll be effective unless they are part of a concerted effort to address several weaknesses in the board structure elsewhere.
I’m not sure, as well, that under the current application process this new distinction is not going to further exacerbate the issue where people are discouraged by the necessity of waiting to join the board, and having done so must further prove that they are trustworthy enough to fully engage with the board, and contribute to protracted or multiple discussions and have a full say in board matters. It runs, I think, the very real danger of making the sort of people we do want to attract to the board feel patronised, who whatever their other qualities are I’m sure as apt to be prickly or prideful about being vetted as anyone else; while Barbelith’s unique there are other communities online they can join and I worry about making joining such an unattractive proposition that we deter the individuals we should be attracting. I’m not saying that what you’ve proposed is oppressive or fatally restricts anybody’s access to the board, I’m just saying that I think such a distinction / transition process would need to be handled very carefully if it’s to do more good than harm. Sorry if all of the above is me being oversensitive and needlessly pointing out the obvious.
Okay, so one of the major problems with trolls on Barbelith and opening up the new member feature fully is that a troll can create a number of accounts and when you ban them using one, they can simply start using another. It's particularly aggravating when individuals use multiple accounts to back themselves up in arguments.
I’m going to be a very junior member for a sec and ask: does this really still happen? Sorry to be naïve but I thought multiple accounts were prohibited - so if this is something you or the moderators are aware of why hasn’t summary action been taken? I appreciate the problem with regard to potential problems in any new voting system, but this seems tied in to the (public) confusion about how many members are currently actually active, and personally I’d rather see that addressed, if at all possible, first. But then I’m a compulsive tidier, and fair enough if it’s not actually a priority. Or (apologies if I've misunderstood) did you mean with regard to the situation of opening up the board fully again in the future?
With regard to multiple users (couples, flatmates) on the same computer, I think, from limited experience, that if this really was going to increase “board security” then people will be able to rise above or work around the annoyance factor of having to log on at different times / in different ways. Obviously it would need to be factored into any democratic process that there was enough time for such multiple logins to occur, and that votes from the same IP address would still be registered - maybe capping it at two or three, which isn’t perfect, but cuts out the thousand member voting bloc problem? |
|
|
