| |
|
I'm not liking the general admissions and inner sanctum idea myself. I didn't really like it when it was posited as a mechanism for handling admissions on here, and I don't think it will work any better for LM to be honest. I understand what it's trying to accomplish, but I think in practice it just sounds like a breeding ground for elitism and unnecessary board politics.
My original idea for Liminal Nation was to position it somewhere between the concepts of message board, collective blog and online magazine - whereby its not just a free-for-all web forum where all comers are welcome to join and post as long as they have a valid email address, but has a stated commitment to generating good content and lively debate. I am very much behind the idea of having a strong editorial strategy behind the whole concept, where moderators/admins aren't just there to tidy up the mess, but also have a certain responsibility towards the editorial direction of the forum. They know clearly and instinctively what the purpose of the board is, what makes a good contributor, and what makes an interesting discussion to both read and participate in, and their job is to try and unobtrusively keep that on track.
I want LM to be about creating interesting, intelligent discussion around magic - with more signal than noise. I want it to be something worth reading, where everyone involved as a contributor has a degree of investment towards creating a really vibrant and exciting space. I like the idea of a message board that doesn't just throw open its doors and invite all comers to post whatever they want, but has a stated commitment to quality content and producing something interesting and worthwhile. The LM that exists in my head is a space that you will want to check out whenever you are online to see what's happening and what people are talking about, exactly as you might regularly check in to read a really good blog or the latest issue of an online mag. But instead of a single person's blog posting or a longer article on something, the draw that keeps you coming back is just really interesting discussion on magic generated by people from a variety of backgrounds, traditions and different levels of experience and practical involvement - who all share a basic commitment to the editorial aims of the board and what it's trying to do. Not too different from what we already have here, on a good day, but more overt and upfront in setting out its stall and - importantly - with the technical and administrative capacity to maintain the boundaries of the space that it wants to be.
I'd rather have a more cumbersome applications process, geared towards sourcing contributors who are actively going to be bringing something to the table in terms of their interests and perspectives; rather than having a fast track admissions process geared towards getting as many people on the board as possible in the hope that a percentage of them will be "good enough" for the main board. I don't think it is elitist to have a clear idea of what the board is supposed to be and what makes a good contributor. I don't think its elitist to be upfront about that and a bit selective about the sort of contributors we want participating and shaping this space.
I personally don't really want to spend my time reading the random thoughts pulled out of the pierced arse of Kaos666 about how he charges sigils by pissing on his elderly relatives in his imagination, and I don't particularly want to read 40 pages of Frater Ponce's incomprehensible tracts on advanced gematria and anti-Semitism. I'd like LN moderators to have the editorial ability to say: "That's not the sort of content that Liminal Nation publishes, please refer to the guidelines you agreed to when you applied for your contributor login. It's not speaker's corner here, and we do expect contributors to post and interact along certain guidelines - such as a willingness to engage in two-way conversation with other contributors, an ability to remain civil and debate reasonably if your ideas are challenged or come under constructive criticism, and an understanding of the editorial aims of the forum - i.e. to generate lively debate and interesting writing on the theory and practice of contemporary magic."
If somebody isn't posting within these broad guidelines, or if they appear to be trolling, or have somehow misunderstood or misjudged the culture of the board - then it shouldn't be a problem, technically or politically, to remove their contributor status. As long as the guidelines and expectations of contributors are made clear and transparent during the admissions process, then accusations of elitism shouldn't be an issue. It would be like accusing the editors of a newspaper or magazine of being elitist for refusing to publish unsolicited feature submissions that fall outside their contributor guidelines. Accusations of elitism and moderator censorship are only valid in a space that doesn't have any stated editorial direction, and purports to give a free platform for all voices. I'm not really interested in building another big playpen for every nutjob with an internet connection to come along and chip in with their coyote-ism, fnording and muppetry. I'd much rather LN have clear editorial guidelines and a strong sense of what it looks for and expects from its contributors, rather than try to make it an egalitarian free space where anything goes - as per most message boards.
I personally don't really want one forum of the board where anything goes and any comers can post whatever they want, with the underlying idea that they might be "chosen" to graduate to the grown-up bit if they get noticed. I don't see the point in that to be honest. If you are not there to post good content and contribute something interesting, then there's not much point in you being a part of the site at all. And I think we can solve all sorts of admissions issues and pre-empt all manner of potential moderation problems just by being clear at the outset that: this is what it's about, if you are on the same page as us, send us an email to introduce yourself explaining a little about your interest and demonstrating that you understand the editorial aims and culture of the board - and you are in.
I like the idea of having a few tiers of membership, something which Vanilla seems to support really well. One model of how I see it working is that your initial email application will get you a log-in valid for 30 days and/or a set number of posts. On this level of membership, you might have a daily posting limit or perhaps be able to respond to existing threads but not start new threads of your own. If - during this probationary period - you manage to avoid making too much of a wanker of yourself and don't appear to be a problem poster - you automatically become a full contributor with full posting rights. If during your probationary period you demonstrate that you don't really understand or respect the culture and aims of the place, your probationary log-in just runs out. Details of all of this to be ironed out in practice through trial and error and tweaked as we go along.
Does this all sounds reasonable and plausible? Any thoughts or criticisms? I think it should go without saying that all Barbelith Temple regulars who have shaped the culture of this place are going to get an invite once this gets off-the-ground. |
|
|
