BARBELITH underground
 

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


Is that it, then?

 
  

Page: 123(4)56789

 
 
grant
14:08 / 30.08.07
whilst in many ways it's delightful I don't really think a tongue-in-cheek Venn diagram cuts it.

Hmm. A list of specific bannable behaviors would probably start with any of a number of -isms that are, by their nature, pervasive and often subtle. Which means that "unawareness" would be the real offense. Or maybe "persistence."

And when people are fairly settled in these roles, a few things happen: First, it gets boring. We have lots of conversations that are more or less the same. Second, it gets frustrating. Posters try to break out of their roles, and inertia makes it difficult to do so. Third, new posters find it hard to find a place when everyone else seems to have a distinct role and voice.

I really like all of what Zippy wrote. This bit, though, reminded me of what this place was like when most people kept changing their usernames.

It also makes me wonder if some newer users kind of feel compelled or squished into a (I'm going to use the "t" word) "trickster" role by default, invisibly. I'm not entirely sure what to do about that, although the name changing thing (and some of the goofy role playing that goes along with that, like Diana's amazing spectral apparition in Conversation this month) might be one way.
 
 
Sibelian 2.0
15:00 / 30.08.07
If you mean me, yes, I did, except, perhaps, "Fairy Godposter" rather than trickster. And, um, I HOPE I did it reasonably visibly.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
15:13 / 30.08.07
Another vote for opening the board up, at least assuming that people are going to be reasonably good-humoured if all hell breaks loose. I'm not saying that anything unpleasant should get a free pass, far from it, but if the board is opened again, it'll probably be worth bearing in mind that if the situation turns ugly then the troll has won.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:13 / 30.08.07
Speaking personally, I didn't - I assumed that you were simply interacting at a level you found comfortable. I had no idea that you were enacting a cunning plan to make us skinny emotional 8-year-olds happy with mental mental mentalism.
 
 
grant
15:36 / 30.08.07
Sibelian, you bring nothing but joy.

And the opening bars of Finlandia.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:34 / 30.08.07
Speak for yourself, grant. But yes, Sibelian, please don't assume that your worthy quest to save us all from ourselves weighed much on anyone's mind until you announced it, at which incredulity was probably most people's reaction.
 
 
This Sunday
17:22 / 30.08.07
Does anybody remember a thread along the lines of 'are we our suits?' about a year ago? Interested, at the moment, to know who viewed their Barbelith-persona as a construct very different from their real-life self and who, like me, pretty much just posts as themselves. Either way, you're going to develop patterns of response to specific posters, whether you're immediately defensive or agree with them out of default, post goofy things in a goofy people thread, serious things when serious things are being discussed by posters perceived as serious, or entirely the reverse, using serious folk as the straightman. But, mission-based suits seem something different.

Mission-based suits, personas and presences to an end seem awful cumbersome. But, for those who live under such mantles and masks: What do you do if you want to suddenly respond to something, not in your character, but your own personal response? Do you feel there's a reputation to uphold? Do politeness/community-standards restrain you much?

Not sure I hold to new-and-uncertain = trickster-in-the-making, unless people feel that's the only way to break monotony and shift away from deadweight and nonfunction. But I can see would-be tricksters coming out of that impetus, and Barbe-parents, hedge trimmers, counselors and politicians. I think Zippy's pretty dead on, even if I'll now be neurotically trying to figure out who's in what role and what did I miss? And who's filling in for the lately absent regulars? Is everyone up on their prescriptions and proscriptions? Is there a doctor in the house? (Cue somebody's: Ganesh!)
 
 
Ticker
17:34 / 30.08.07
Opening it up would be fantastic, would we need more active mods for potential spillage?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:08 / 30.08.07
As I've just said in the Banning thread, on reflection I believe that reopening the board without giving somebody who's actually present on the damn thing the ability to ban as and when to be an utterly nutso suggestion.

Email Tom every single time another spam suit signs up? Every single time another bot appears from out of nowhere to flood the board with links to fuck knows how much random shit?

Have you all gone a bit loopy? Look at the wiki, people. How much point would there have been even bothering to try and keep that clean of rubbish if grant hadn't been able to lock it down at the moment of his choosing?
 
 
Ticker
18:26 / 30.08.07
right but can't we petition the Tom with prayer to give someone db access?

even if it just access to the one db table with suits?

Tom coded in the recently updated threads not to long ago, perhaps he could code in one page for the ban squad to push a shiny button of doom?
 
 
This Sunday
19:04 / 30.08.07
Petitions could occur, yes, but who does everyone trust? Or, even the majority? I've got a list somewhere, as I'm sure other posts do, but most of my list have their detractors or issues of recurring accusations by other posters.

We trust Tom because we have to, but selecting someone... I guess I'm glad I don't have any exceedingly delicate information in PMs or registration materials.
 
 
Ticker
19:27 / 30.08.07
I just asked this in the banning thread, but is there any reason we wouldn't trust any three mods to make the correct decision on a ban?

If one was to use the existing mod structure (and clean out the no longer active ones) and the current design of the board, all the db/code bits are already there?

Worse case three mods ban someone and we collectively ask for them to be reinstated, yeah?

Why do we need an ultra team? If we open the board I'd think it would be best not to wait for any one shift to show up that has the power? If we open the board we make banning more casual for faster reaction time?

also on the opening side of things, do we have a human readable text verification layer or would bots be able to get in?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:31 / 30.08.07
Would it be at all possible to have little windows of openness? Like, for a day or so, once every few weeks? Then we let prospective peeps know that they have X amount of time to nip in and sign up quick. It wouldn't stop the more determined fuckwit or the lucky spammer, but it would limit the number of suits even our more obsessive sad cases could register to something managable, and permit at least a trickle of new punters in.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:53 / 30.08.07
XK, fyi, I can probably think of three moderators I would be cautious of giving banning or vetoing power to.

In terms of:

right but can't we petition the Tom with prayer to give someone db access?

We can, but he won't. I have not seen the back end, but I think we have to accept that the reasons for this are at least persuasive to him.
 
 
grant
20:53 / 30.08.07
Of note in Zippy's linked article: items #4 (rotate responsibilities) and #7 (access to resources) seem most interesting.
 
 
Ticker
00:59 / 31.08.07
XK, fyi, I can probably think of three moderators I would be cautious of giving banning or vetoing power to.

ok but would those three be all pushing the button at the same time or would we have a cooler/qualified head in the hot seat as well at any given moment?
I imagine we'd have to do some mod shuffling but that surely would be less of a hassle than getting a new board?

I guess I tend to think of technology as being capable of handling these things once you get the process map part figured out. this maybe just pure folly in the current board's case, but wouldn't the ideal be three mods at any given time could eject someone from an open board?
 
 
grant
01:36 / 31.08.07
Well, part of the problem is that we've put forward candidates before to have access to the db - basically, just to code in banning functionality, if I remember correctly - and essentially been told it's a no go. In fact, I think it was Olmos when Olmos was Paleface, wasn't it?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:20 / 31.08.07
Indeed. I would normally suggest that this conversational strand be moved to "Topics of Concern - Banning", but in this case I think we've already had it enough times that we can probably do it here.

It isn't that we haven't thought of these things. Nobody apart from Tom is going to be allowed access to the database, either to ban people or to alter it so that people can in the future be banned as a moderator action. One would either have to convince Tom to change his mind about this, which has so far not been achieved, or work within this limitation.
 
 
Ticker
13:12 / 31.08.07
right so has Tom said the idea of a new piece of coded in functionality like cloning the existing mod request page with some tweaks is also a no go?

If we were to decide that no knew status was needed, just the current mod status, it would massively simplify the back end tweaks. Possibly there would be no knew table creation required. Take some functionality that already exists and nudge it to do a new trick.

I might be on crack but here's what I think would be the simpliest thing from my understanding via error codes of the board... take a copy of the mod request page change the table it looks at to the user table, tweak the options of the page to give mods a ban/remove option only. If you want the person back in they have to get a new suit. Or if you wanted to be fancy have the field just be their password field in the user table and have the mods be able to edit it like they do a post. shit that probaly would be the simpliest route...Right, give all mods access to a cloned page for a 3 mod approval password edit. that's probably less coding then Tom did for the recently updated threads page.

So that's like an hour of time to make a clone of the mod request page change the clone to look at the user table's password field and then maybe an hour to test it on some crap suits...so say at the most a couple of hours to shut us up and open the board?

From us Tom would need the all clear that would be cool with 3 mods being able to change that password field for a lockout.

Then you could send 'real' bans later to Tom for deletion from the table at his leisure.

sorry if if I'm massively over simplifying something that is vastly more complex but I think if we make it really easy for Tom to do he will do it.
 
 
Ticker
13:13 / 31.08.07
Oh and I forgot to add you could probably very easily set it so only Policy mods could access it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:29 / 31.08.07
Password field and email address, actually, but fine. If you feel that this can be achieved without any of the reasons why it has never happened before preventing it, go for it. As long as it is limited to Policy mods and we can have a serious look at those first, let's go for it. I look forward to seeing what happens next.
 
 
grant
13:54 / 31.08.07
Should I email Tom asking to

- cusm
- GGM
- Ganesh

from Policy modlist, since those three aren't really around any more?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:58 / 31.08.07
You are assuming that "present" is the same as "competent to ban", there, grant. If we're going to provide this power, I think who has it needs a bit more thought than that.

Not that I think we _are_, but notwithstanding. Feel free to remove them if you want, but it doesn't make a huge amount of difference whether someone who doesn't ever log in is in or not in the list of moderators.
 
 
grant
14:04 / 31.08.07
Well, if a list has to start somewhere, it might as well start with those names.

What constitutes "competent to ban"?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:18 / 31.08.07
That doesn't matter unless banning is going to be made the gift of the Policy mods, which it will probably not be. If such a thing turns out to be possible, we can discuss that.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:31 / 31.08.07
XK, every single thing you have said has been suggested at some point in the last two years and it's been met with time complaints and refusal. I work with an access database, everything you are saying is easy only if the code was written in a functional way in the first place, this stuff should take very little time but whether it will or not depends on how it was set up originally. Assume puts the ass in you and me.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:40 / 31.08.07
That sounded filthy the first time I read it.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
15:01 / 31.08.07
Assume puts the ass in you and me

Strictly speaking, assume puts the ass before you and me, meaning we either have to fight over the ass, work out an ass-rota, or both go at it at the same time, consequences be damned.

I think the phrase you were grasping for, TS, was 'to assume makes an ASS out of U and ME'. Then again, I've no idea what bearing All Star Superman has on XK's suggestions for modifying the board. Though I guess, this being Barbelith, Grant Morrison is always implicated somehow...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:04 / 31.08.07
Shush you naughties.
 
 
Blake Head
17:10 / 31.08.07
Can I ask what people who have replied affirmatively to Tom’s suggestion that the board open registration what they, realistically, expect it to achieve in terms of the board’s ongoing existence, and on what timeframe? I mean, I can understand the argument “Well, it can’t hurt now”, but then I’m one of those many unlikely to have to deal directly with the negative consequences mentioned above. Are there a slew of potential applicants that are currently being dissuaded from joining solely by the current admissions process? Do people think it would contribute to solving such problems as the rigidity of assumed roles that Zippy identified, the loss of momentum and focus, the exodus of several long-standing members and the disillusionment of multiple others still present who decreasingly feel like there’s any point to starting new conversations? Are people really going to rush back to re-engage because they heard on the grapevine that the admissions were opened up, or will they be more likely to go “Well, good luck with that...”?

Basically, if we suddenly fling the gates wide open, are we expecting a sudden shot in the arm from the next generation of the type of posters Flyboy describes on the previous page, who have been attracted by… what exactly? Our history? Our reputation in various areas? I’m sorry if that sounds dismissive but it sounds like an unreasonable weight of expectation to place on any individuals attracted to the site as it currently stands. With time perhaps a sufficient number of new members might establish a new (social) structure and equilibrium on the board but under the current conditions where access to certain key powers resides with someone who no longer significantly engages with the board I’m worried that the patience and goodwill of those being asked to carry out increasing janitorial duties while the board transitions (possibly into a purely comics discussion forum - Barbelith in its uninterrupted form) will finally be exhausted, not to mention that the issue of that dependence on an absent administrator will remain, and any remaining members will have to endure the lack of freedom to change the board’s general structure.

If we open up the registration and the proposed banning procedures don’t function as optimally as hoped, I suppose the board could be put back on the life support of those members who are still persevering and the trickle currently coming in, but that seems to be a limited proposition. None of this is to suggest that an open registration is necessarily a bad thing, but to ask how helpful it is now to Barbelith’s currently stalled state, when it’s not part of a suite of changes that devolve power to those engaging with the board. Currently I’d concur with Randy that opening up the board without simultaneously granting at the very least the independence to eject trolls and… other things… from the board, which has been categorically rejected so far, is, if not potentially disastrous, then certainly likely to further alienate those members who take on the responsibility for clearing up the mess, with unclear benefits.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
01:14 / 01.09.07
For some on-topic shit...

So, is that it, then? I'm still curious as to who, other than Tom, actually gets to make that call.

As I said earlier, if people are going to give up, then why NOT just open registration EVEN WITHOUT a decent banning procedure, if the alternative is just, well, calling it a day because we can't do shit without worrying about trolls?

If the end result is going to be BARBELITH = CLOSED if we DON'T do that, either through everyone fucking off or through utter pointlessness, and BARBELITH = PROBABLY CLOSED DUE TO TROLLAGE, I'd take the second one over the first any day. No chance versus some chance? Gimme the one with some actual "chance" in it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:09 / 01.09.07
There's no evidence that Barbelith was going to be closed, Stoatie. It can probably carry on like this indefinitely, if it needs to. Tom has offered to shut it down and port over the archives in some form, or maintain it as archive, but no, there's no need to rush to open it, particularly.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
09:18 / 01.09.07
Having followed this thread and others like it since I joined nigh on a year ago, I'm wondering: what actions do people think will realistically stand a chance of rebooting Barbelith, both on a technical and a social/communicative level? Is it an issue of money - as in, we as a community aren't or haven't been willing to chip in for a professional rewrite of the backend that would address the myriad issues surrounding application, moderation and banning, amongst other things?

Is it that somehow "all the good ones got away"? I think Stoatie unwittingly spoke for me when he said (I paraphrase) that he's been here for seven years and even he believes that he missed out on the Golden Age of Barbelith. Have there been identifiable trends in the themes, topics and communicative styles that have been brought to bear on this shared space, trends that have taken the place from hi-fi to lo-fi, from fine to crude, from edifying to dumbing down?

Is it something else?

I for one haven't participated for more than a year, and I've lurked for maybe another 6 months before that, so there are reams of text that I've never read. I could be wrong, but I don't believe the quality as such has been declining over the years. YMMV of course. Meaning, I still find it possible to strike up some of the best conversations I have outside of my non-httped life in this space. Much of what goes on in here I have no personal stake in - Comics is the prime example, but I still recognize the quality and effort that repeat offenders put into that part of here. The Temple too - one of the reasons I joined in the first place was that this was the only place I've seen where practitioners, theoreticians and the random guy in the street could discuss phenomena and propositions far removed from consensus reality without ending up in a pissing contest. I know that some regular and vital posters to the Temple will vehemently disagree with me there, Live things in you for example, and others I am sure. But overall, the ethos of the place is one I am attracted to - and that is a first for me in terms of interaction with strangers on the WWW.

To shorten this somewhat, I'll reiterate - what will it take to get the place up and running (again)? What is this "up and running" anyway? And lastly, and most importantly, what can I do to help?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
10:24 / 01.09.07
I'm not sure how many times I can repeat myself before I end up chewing my own fingers off.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:04 / 01.09.07
Short version: yes, you're wrong, and there's nothing specific or technical you can do to help. If I were you, I would just try to contribute the best you can to the board as it stands.
 
  

Page: 123(4)56789

 
  
Add Your Reply