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

Underground > Policy & Help >

Opening up membership possibility

Page: 1(2)3 4

20:05 / 13.09.07

I don't know much, or actually anything, about what might be involved technically in some of the above suggestions about airlocks, naughty steps and so on, but they do sound complicated. As well as a bit 'Byrne Robotics'. All right, it's not me that'll have to clean up the mess if somebody goes postal, but I do think the more hoops people have to jump through before acquiring full member status, the more likely they are to cut up rough later. Or, as in the case of the kind of person that I suspect we do want on here, just not bother in the first place.

Surely simple is best when it comes to this kind of thing? If that means the occasional individual's going to show up with a zinger about 'hippie fags' or related, wouldn't it be something Barbelith could just about handle?

20:33 / 13.09.07

Another vote for option 3 with an increased posting limit (8-10) and ideally a more immediate banhammer.

A quarantine zone simply won't afford the gen-u-ine Barbelith experience, and therefore won't provide us with much of a picture of how any given individual will react to the day to day realities of the board proper.

20:46 / 13.09.07

Another vote for option 3 with some version of the amendments proposed above.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

20:57 / 13.09.07

Another vote for #3, Boboss stylee.

Mon Oncle Ignatius

21:10 / 13.09.07

I think numero 3 is going to be my choice too, with a higher post count for sure, and the quick-fire banhammer in place for cases of egregious trolling.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:25 / 13.09.07

I'm sympathetic to XK's position - my main point being that, especially if we don't have a quick banhammer, a determined troll with no posting limits and a dozen or so suits could cause havoc. A relatively generous posting limit to new members, with a password/activation link sent to their email address (to prevent repetitive registration of multiple suits, or at least to slow it down a little) - the aim is to stop people posting porn or hate speech or similar to dozens or hundreds of threads, basically - and admins on site in case of obvious and unambiguous attacks on the board sounds reasonably secure and uncomplicated.

21:32 / 13.09.07

Hmm, if it's feasible to have them on separate status might it also be so to require less positive votes to actuate the airlock sluice?

A thought I had, anyway.

Mon Oncle Ignatius

21:40 / 13.09.07

if it's feasible to have them on separate status might it also be so to require less positive votes to enact the airlock sluice?

That sounds like a good suggestion, if it's technically possible. So we'd have admins to enforce a quick fast airlocking in cases of spamming or blatant vileness, and a shorter shrift given to those who have yet to prove their commitment and/or worth in cases where it's less obvious, but might need to be enacted with a greater degree of rapidity - and also with transparency and consensus.

21:43 / 13.09.07

Gah, 'actuate' not 'enact', I think. Too slow in an attempt to try the quick mod.

EDIT: Works? Yes!

22:01 / 13.09.07

I'd agree with The voting aspect of options one and two sounds uncomfortably to close to an audition for a reality TV show. I'd like for people to feel pretty free to join, personally, even though we all may regret some of them doing so.
I think I'll say three as well, if I'm understanding the bannability aspect correctly. And thanks again Tom and Cal.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

22:12 / 13.09.07

Falcon- I was just thinking that meself. Maybe a "new" member would only require four rather than eight "kick" votes, or something like that. If that's possible.

That said, if I understand the abstract correctly, we have until, well, today, really, to decide on an option. I'll put my vote in the #3 box, if those three options are the entire menu.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:14 / 13.09.07

3 wtih admins and emailed activation links, yes.

22:21 / 13.09.07

Of those options I'd vote for 3 but agree that 3 posts isn't enough to show your mettle. Perhaps instead of just raising the post limit it could be supplemented with a thread threshold, so that in order to gain full membership you have to start at least one thread.

I have sympathy with Happy Quadrangle's point about the cordon sanitaire, and a minimum thread requirement would also give you content for the Airlock. It would give new members a chance to make a substatial contribution and if it's something in another thread on the main board that the newbie wanted to address, they could start a spin-off thread in the Airlock. Those thread could be migrated over to the main board in due course. So it would still be part of Barbelith proper, but it would be easier to clean up the mess if someone just wants to pick a fight.

Glenn Close But No Cigar

22:22 / 13.09.07

I'd opt for something close to 3), with an increased number of daily posts - say 8-10. Naughty steps, airlocks etc. seem to not be particularly conducive to a welcoming atmosphere. Special as this place is, I can't imagine that many of the posters we actually want to attract will be so enamoured of Barbelith that they'll stick about in posting kindergarten until existing full members deign them sufficiently safe/fascinating etc. to graduate to 'big school'. It'll be interesting to see whether, with the new banning functionality, there will actually be an increase or decrease in bans. I suspect that the presence of a fairly at-hand banning mechanism will actually decrease the number of difficult posters going postal. In some cases, lengthy ban-threads seem to have pushed their subjects from the redeemable to the irredeemable. Will be interesting to see if this is the case.

22:25 / 13.09.07

I have a vague impression of a negative correlation between eagerness to post and the quality of the posts produced by people who haven't had a chance to acclimate, so I'm not sold on #3, but I've said my piece about this before, and I seem to be well outside the mainstream on this issue.

Also, I'm not going to get too precious about what changes get made so long as something changes.

23:46 / 13.09.07

I know many people have mentioned this before, but how possible is it to become invisible to google? And who would be for or against it (most importantly, what does Tom think)?

00:25 / 14.09.07

I have a vague impression of a negative correlation between eagerness to post and the quality of the posts produced by people who haven't had a chance to acclimate, so I'm not sold on #3,

I think this is a slightly kinder version of my objection to #3 - the possibility of the one-post drive-by that derails threads. (Not completely, but long enough to make the teeth grit.) Just so you don't think you're all alone there.

I'm also not sure I'd typify an introduction area as a "posting kindergarten" - or, well, more like if there *is* a kindergarten, I'd like to do some coloring, too. Like, I'd want it to be part of the board, not a place where no one but newbies hung out.

And like gourami, I'm much more in favor of anything changing than against any particular change.

03:34 / 14.09.07

Banhammer is a go, so why have any posting limits if a poster is problematic they get booted? why the need for junior status?

It's for their own protection, Inklet, Their own protection, I tells ya.

07:18 / 14.09.07

Yeah, I agree with Grant and Gourami, any of the above would be better than what we have now.

Tryphena Absent

08:10 / 14.09.07

I like option 2 best, just as it was described in the initial post. I think that introduction threads are usually quite populated by current users and it would be in part an extension of that, I also like the idea of allowing users on as a very democratic process involving barbelith members and I think that most of our moderators are sharp about things like this.

08:22 / 14.09.07

I really don't like this airlock idea, where new posters have to spend a probation until moderators decide they are interesting enough to join the rest of the board and vote them in. It's horrible. Comes across really wanky and elitist, and would definitely discourage me from joining if I came across it.

I think option 3, with a posting limit of 8-10 posts a day, and more immediate and accessible banning procedures - such as multiple admins with full banning powers for emergencies, and/or less than 8 moderator votes to enact a ban. I don't see why we would need more than that. We're never going to completely eliminate trolls from a space on the internet, but with more effective moderating and banning procedures in place, this shouldn't be too much of a problem surely?

I think this place has been a gated community for way too long, and I am more than happy for there to be an influx of occasional drive by "stupid PC hippies!" and "teh kaos majiks" posts so long as someone, not far away, has the ability to curb it quickly when it gets out of hand and people go into troll meltdown. I am more than happy for there to be that sort of trade off if it means an influx of new and interesting people to this space.

I quite like the idea of new users having to start a thread on something before they get full access, but that might complicate things.

I also think that more immediate banning capability will likely limit the troll problems, as the total inability to ban is a bit of an invitation for people to act up and attract pages of attention to themselves in prolonged multiple banning threads that take ages to get resolved. A readily available ban hammer is an incentive for people who have a genuine interest in contributing to this place to not act up on a whim.

08:47 / 14.09.07

a password/activation link sent to their email address (to prevent repetitive registration of multiple suits, or at least to slow it down a little)

I'm very much in favour of a confirmation email, a double opt-in as they say. It also acts as a rudimentary ID check and prevents signing up with someone else's details, and it's pretty standard.
I'm against the newbie zone idea, if I turned up to a board and had to stick to the learner pool until enough people liked me, I wouldn't bother. It's patronising. Say for example some well respected person (Ganesh, or Alan Moore, or Gaius Baltar) registered and then could access only the 'hi i am noob' threads, how would that be justified? If I invite my mum onto the boardn to post a recipe, or Alan wants to post about the new Watchmen movie, why would they have to wait for an indefinite period until a quorum of members approve them? I agree with Tryphena that a democratic Barbelith is best, but I don't see why we vote on new members, let's vote on banning instead and have the default expectation be 'member' instead of 'troll'.

Basically, I don't want the 'firewall' anti-troll process to be that obstructive to genuine posters. A limit on posting restricts the damage a troll can do and is a tolerable restriction on a new suit.

The learner pool is also a more complicated option that's more difficult to enact, the coding to cap someone's posts for the first month or whatever is going to be easier, isn't it? Go 3, amended option three is made of win.

Tryphena Absent

09:19 / 14.09.07

I don't think option 3 will work, if I was a troll I wouldn't bother posting when I had 8 to 10 posts, I wouldn't post at all, I'd wait for the obligatory time to be over and then I'd just go for it for a day and flame everything.

I really don't like this airlock idea, where new posters have to spend a probation until moderators decide they are interesting enough to join the rest of the board and vote them in. It's horrible. Comes across really wanky and elitist

I think it's less wanky and elitist than having three admins with the power to ban immediately, which is the way it happens everywhere else. I like the idea of everyone getting a say for once, that never happens, it would be nice and the "airlock" would end up functioning as a normal forum anyway. I think either we're doing it the way everywhere does it or we're doing it differently. Why not make this board about the people who use it and fucking carry through from where it was 5 years ago? I'd like to be interested in it and not find it dull.

Happy Dave Has Left

09:20 / 14.09.07

Y'know, Stinklet and a few other people have convinced me - I think the newbiezone is a nice idea in practice, but having turned it around and had a think about from the perspective of a 'stumbler' who comes across Barbelith because of a link from someone or a search, I would be a bit put off by having to sit around being erudite on demand to prove my credentials. I think I didn't see the fuss initially because I waited about 9 months to get in, without even a ficsuit or the ability to post (although to be fair, the applications process was utterly broken at that point).

So, yeah, I cast my lot in with the Option 3 bloc. Limited posting (I think 10 a day for your first hundred posts is a good limit - you could conceivably graduate to unrestricted posting within 10 days, and you'd have to be a pretty sophisticated troll to not post anything bilious in your first hundred posts) and the visible and usable banhammer is a great combo. I think purely not having such a tortuous route to banning will do a lot to deter the kind of troll that likes to have a thirty page debate about their personal understanding of misogyny.

09:26 / 14.09.07

I think option 3 may be the most positive forward step but share Gypsy Lantern's feeling of cringe about the elite / noob division.

However, much like Phex on the previous page, I think this can maybe be overcome by being really explicit when the Barbelarvae first arrive, explaining that 'honestly, it isn't personal - Barbelith is an exciting, diverse, occasionally divisive place but in the past has been at risk from assault with malicious intent. We're sure you understand why we're taking this inconvenient measure and look forward to having you with us very soon.'

And new people who can't get behind that, aren't understanding, won't get invested in keeping a clean house are perhaps people who wouldn't dig it here anyway...

Janean Patience

09:31 / 14.09.07

Another vote for option three with a limit of ten posts a day. When I joined Barbelith it was because I saw threads I wanted to contribute to. Finding out I wouldn't be able to even when signed up would have put me off. And though the idea of a n00b vetting thread which would in practice be a permanent fight like the whole-village-battles in the Asterix books is entertaining, I think it would reduce registration and stop people getting in. Which is surely the whole point.

There will be drive-by posters with unpleasant views on homosexuality, politics, Girls Aloud and their ideal Justice League line-up. Hopefully we'll cope.

09:40 / 14.09.07

Tryphena, I think the kind of dedicated troll prepared will lie in wait until the time is ripe is quite a rare phenomenon. I know we've attracted a few in the past, and that we're likely to attract a few in the future, but with new powers of bannination I'm of the opinion that they'll be considerably more manageable.

09:51 / 14.09.07

explaining that 'honestly, it isn't personal - Barbelith is an exciting, diverse, occasionally divisive place but in the past has been at risk from assault with malicious intent. We're sure you understand why we're taking this inconvenient measure and look forward to having you with us very soon.'

I just think taking this attitude towards opening the board is more of the same paranoid gated community mentality that has made this place slow down to a crawl and really limited its development over the past few years. I don't really see the need for any more of these elaborate firewalls if we have a more robust banning and moderation system in place to deal with major problems as and when they may occur.

Shiny: Well Over Thirty

10:34 / 14.09.07

Put me down in support of the modified version of Option 3 that's garnered a lot of support. 5-10 posts a day, combined with email registration confirmation, increased banning powers, and possibly a policy of quick deletion of obvious drive-by idiocy ought to make that one pretty workable. Especially if we make the jump from new member to full member dependant on number of posts rather than time elapsed since joining. Most trolls and the like ought to find it difficult to pretend to be sane for a whole hundred posts, so in theory they should end up banned before the restrictions ever get lifted.

10:39 / 14.09.07

Re: Tryph Sparks timelag trolling - apart from the dedication issue, and really I know of only one man that dedicated to trolling this community, what a special man he is, have we actually covered how one graduates from n00b to full-member? Maybe I missed something about the time - I'd think after, say, 500-1000 posts of lovely, unbannable n00bness, work that is, then that would be, ideally, the point at which full membership was achieved.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

10:41 / 14.09.07

I'll go with the 'Option 3 but more than three posts a day' option. Options 1 and 2 are extremely offensive and elitist, I personally would understand a limit on the number of posts I could make in a new place rather than having to dance to amuse other people who I don't know.

Tryphena Absent

10:59 / 14.09.07

Well I can totally go with option 3 if the majority feels it's more appropriate. I just always liked barbelith's democratic experiment but I do see why people think it's a bit gruesome.

11:10 / 14.09.07

Gypsy, yeh I see your point. Swift and decisive banning functionality solves some problems pretty quickly but my understanding - and I may well have missed something here, discussion's been moving pretty quickly - was that there isn't a perfect ban solution and is unlikely to be any time soon.

My only concern was that, in the absence of this funtionality a hyperbaric chamber for new members makes sense so long as we ensure we're as sympathetic to the good ones stuck in there as we are lacerating of the arseholes. Not that Lithers aren't welcoming, you understand - as a very junior member I can attest to everyone's tolerance - just that we need to soften the (oftentimes unfair) perception of the place as wanky and elitist in matters of recruitment.

11:11 / 14.09.07

I just always liked barbelith's democratic experiment

Me too, I'm glad we're voting on this. What's people's opinions on how new posters lose thei noob status? I'm for an automatic upgrade after a certain number of posts (if we go for post limitation) so if someone's posting every day after about a month or so they lose the cap, no human intervention necessary. Again, fostering a view of the default expectation being an easy integration into the board. Would that be susceptible to trolling?

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:24 / 14.09.07

I like the numbers idea, also - it stops suits being registered and then "laid down" - I'd prefer "set number of days in which a post is made", to avoid rewarding simple loquacity, but that would be harder to code, I suspect.

Page: 1(2)3 4