I'm not sure I'm very happy about people being able to ban people out of hand easily on the board, even if they are new members. And I'm still concerned about drive-by stuff. Is there any consensus about how to handle that stuff?
Tom, I doubt there's ever going to be an overwhelming consensus with this many people; but from what I can tell, just about everyone thinks that we should have some moderators with, if not banning authority, at least freeze or time-out authority. Those proposed are all very long-time and trusted posters, even though I may think some are less willing to tolerate shit than me, f'rinstance, it seems that they've shown a dedication to maintaining the quality here that more than proves their worthiness for the authority. Honestly, at this point, it seems more directly than you, since they are here more consistently; though I'll certainly qualify that by saying you are the reason for it all staying around (besides all the posters), and the fact that you've kept it going with all the rest of your life being so overwhelming shows that you care about this place as much as anyone. I'm sure that this can be a pain in the ass to even think about sometimes. I'm only saying that they have proven themselves as well, and are constantly here, and so could be trusted with at least some ability. I'm not sure if actually anyone disagrees with that, or am I totally wrong here?
I don't know that there should be separate threads on the issues of admissions and banning, since they are so inextricably tied together.
It's the whole sitting in judgment of contribution quality rather than just calling zero tolerance on douchery.
I'd tend to agree with that, and the whole vibe of making them do tricks to get in, dangling Bar-bacon in front of the performing dogs. Well, I guess that's dramatic. While anyone who posts here probably feels it's a special place or they wouldn't do it, and I agree that it is, you can't count people out before they're even in, you know? However, I do understand that without some kind of authoritative presence, some people are going to feel free to be asses, and some others are going to be tremendously off-put by that. So I do understand the sentiment, though I may not be as pessimistic:
It is possible, although I doubt it, on a hunch, that vote-based banning and calling for help from Tom in extremis will be robust enough to allow us stop treating every potential joiner as a risk. Failing that, we have to keep the route to admissions straitened and obsessive-oriented - like by having 5 new users created per day, or giving people 3 posts a day, or only letting them post in the Conversation until specific criteria are met.
I don't understand your trepidation Tom, if— as I think it stands— Cal is willing to make a few changes, ones that meet the criteria you formerly felt were necessary, i.e. no moderator access to the private data, and possibly no actual permanent banning, if you say so; just a temporary finger in the dike until you can bring in some concrete or a wrecking ball. But I honestly may not get the situation. If you don't feel it's too intrusive and you've got the time, do you think you could elucidate your current feelings about the delegation of some of the duties and authority to others? (I hope that reads sincere, it is) Am I misreading the current state of affairs?
Really. Anyone?
EDIT: now I'm reading the banning thread and wondering how redundant or contradictory I'm being. I swear, this should be one thread. |
