BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Policy & Help >

Barbelith II: thoughts

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Tom Coates
13:55 / 02.02.02
Just in case anyone has forgotten, the current incarnation of Barbelith is destined to end fairly soon. Cal is still working on the new version of the site, which will start off as a cut-down and more stable version of the board as-is, with a few tweaks in private messaging and moderation. From there, we have a great number of ideas about how to make this place great again. Or perhaps even BEYOND great.

Now I'm going to make a suggestion about the relaunch of the board which I think might work to address many people's thoughts about the board in general which have been raised in the Barbelith is dying thread. Several people have talked about shutting the board down. Some others have talked about increasing moderation.

What I am suggesting is a short month of reading rather than writing - thinking instead of posting. I'm suggesting a one month moritorium on new members and a daily posting limit for each individual member.

And I'm thinking that this should be fairly stringent. In fact what I'm thinking about is that people should be able to post no more than three or four posts a day. For a whole month.

The idea behind such an approach would be to force each and every member on the board to look at what they find important to talk about - what it is that concerns them in their daily lives and what it is that they think needs to be changed in the world. It would be to encourage people to READ a lot of threads before posting - put on some pretty heavily brakes left, right and centre, in essence. And at the end of the month we either get rid of the posting limit or we raise it gradually.

I don't want any immediate gut reactions to this suggestion - I want people to pretend it's already in force. THINK about what you want to get from the site, THINK not about the one month, but all the months AFTER that, and let me know if you think there would be a medium term benefit and whether the short-term cost would be worth it.

If anyone wants more details about some of the ideas for the soon-to-be-launched site, then let me know.
 
 
w1rebaby
17:00 / 02.02.02
A few thoughts:

1. It would kill Conversation stone dead. The only time anyone would post anything would be a lengthy joke, or perhaps a "my life is shit" rant, and without the possibility of instant by-play nobody would respond, except to attach one of their own. Whether it would come back to life again after the month, I don't know - it might be too much.

(I suspect that some people out there might support the death of Conversation, but I'm not one of them.)

2. Three or four posts a day would mean the average length of posts increasing, and the amount of actual debate decreasing. Posts would concentrate more on expressing the poster's POV; who's going to waste a post on trying to clarify a small point in someone else's? It would end up like a blog community, possibly worse (Barbecities).

I guess what I'm saying is that, for that month, I would expect the amount of self-indulgence to vastly increase and the amount of effective communication to decrease. Personally I think I'd stop visiting after a week, and might or might not return after the next three.
 
 
Tom Coates
17:17 / 02.02.02
I have to say that I think that's a highly negative view. Yes - for a few weeks it would effectively kill the Conversation. But not permanently. And we will have the improved private messaging service by then as well - which should be essentially a kind of closed-wall e-mail service within barbelith. So you could still talk individually to anyone you wanted.

As to people only expounding their own point of view (and posts getting longer) - I think they're both legitimate concerns, but not necessarily crippling ones. Where you see a lack of debate, I see debate where all parties have to actually believe that the comments they are making will add something to the debate and WON'T just be ignored. Longer posts would be offset by fewer posts, and hopefully more would be on-topic.

The other reason I'm suggesting this is that I think there will probably be a considerable backlog of moderation work to be undertakena and a whole load of functionality to test. Perhaps a month is too long, perhaps three posts a day is too little - but that's a matter of adjusting the levels, surely?[/LIST]
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:17 / 02.02.02
Wirebaby, beat me to it--- I think he's right on all counts. Not only would it kill dialogue/conversation/debate aspects of the board, but it would also limit the topics and scope. I think one of the best things Barbelith has going for it is that you can discuss a wide range of topics, and with a limit of four posts or less per day, people would have to choose one or two topics and stick with them, and likely stick to forums in which they are most comfortable and not cross-polinate much.

I know that a post limit that low would likely just cause me to give up on the place, because it would aggravate me to limit my posting to maybe one post each in the comics, music, headshop, and maybe the conversation forum per day, and not have enough spare mosts to add to multiple interesting topics in the same forum, or post responses to what I have written if need be.

I can understand why you may want a post limit, but maybe you should consider a 10 post-per-day limit or something... that would at least give people some breathing room...
 
 
Tom Coates
17:20 / 02.02.02
And don't forget - we're not talking about a FUN period of consolidation, we're talking about a DIFFICULT period that would hopefully make the place even MORE useful and fun afterwards. I'm certainly planning to stop new members signing up for a while after the new site launches simply to check that it will all be working properly with the number of people that we DO have.
 
 
Rev. Wright
17:24 / 02.02.02
I think limiting posts would actually harm content, rather than make people read threads. I am currnetly supr5ised by the threads that get attention compared to the threads that are ignored. (to note the threads involved in discussing the possible demise/leaving of members/attitude/cliques are vastly dominating attention best left to threads that make Barbelith, Barbelith)

Moderation is the way forward, in my mind. Human response to evoke attention to valid threads and to nip in the bud threads better suited to conversation or the inevitable 'most favourites list'. Moderation would allow for some structure to debate, development of ideas and interaction. Using the personal messenger to gauge a topic starters intent on hir thread, and consulting posters for feedback.

Personally I would like to mention that I am currently endorsing the Barbelith Rune Futhark thread. I am finding that it and other threads are in fact stimulating my personal practice.

There are not many sites I can compare to Barbelith, and it may be that we have all got rather complacent to its existence and extension to our virtual lives. I keep introducing it to people, and they are astounded by its content and philosophy.
 
 
Tom Coates
17:25 / 02.02.02
Oh and also remember - this site IS going to change. It has to. We have to have a better structured back-end that lasts and works and which we can adapt and change as the times demand.

There's going to be a HUGE tendency to protest about any changes, just like there is every time a colour scheme alters. Not all the changes will stick - but everyone had frankly get used to the idea that the site isn't going to be like it has been for the last couple of years, and start thinking of ways to make it even better (and thinking them through and talking to one another about them) rather than immediately assuming that they won't work.

Strop over.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
17:31 / 02.02.02
I think it's generally a good idea, Tom. Limiting everyone to three or four posts a day does seem a little drastic, though. Ten seems more reasonable. I'd be fairly annoyed if I was called on something but not able to respond because of too strict a posting limit.

I'm not for killing the Conversation, but surely living without it for a while wouldn't be that much of a hardship? It would certainly help the board gain a bit more focus than it currently has, and when the posting limit's lifted the Conversation may very well benefit from that.

Maybe for the month in question, the Conversation could be moved to Pocket Barbelith at Delphi (where there would be no limit), and with a link to it on the main board it'd be no more difficult for anyone to access than the Conversation is now.

And I'd like to back you up on this:

quote:Tom:
There's going to be a HUGE tendency to protest about any changes, just like there is every time a colour scheme alters.

I was one of those who used to attack the idea of moderators whenever it popped up, but I have to take that back. The moderator system in place now works, and works well (or would, if it weren't for the fact that some moderators don't even seem to be present here any more).

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: E. Randy Deep Joy ]
 
 
Tom Coates
17:38 / 02.02.02
OK - the moderation issue is going to be addressed, in what I hope is a way that will add more accountability into the whole thing and not piss people off too much. The problem at the moment is that moderation is a very labour intensive job, and it also riles people who don't like the censorship aspects that it implies.

So the moderation process will go something like this:

Each thread will (to start off with) have an 'Is this thread in the right place" section - which everyone will be able to click on. If you think it should be in the FIlms rather than conversation, you click the 'move to films' button. If enough people do this (five, say) then the moderators of that forum will be alerted through private messaging.

This moderation will work in exactly the same way as all moderation on the site - firstly all the moderators will be informed that someone has flagged a worrying message or a thread to move. Then any one moderator can suggest a change. Then all the other moderators will be told about this change, and it will take the agreement of at least one other moderator for the change to go through.

Moderators will eventually be chosen by built-into-the-site democracies rather than through me - each user will have a vote which we hope they will exercise effectively and appropriately. Moderation will probably operate in stints - terms, if you will, of anything from a couple of weeks to a couple of months.

Threads that have existed for over a month will also be flagged for the moderators, who will have the ability to defer their destruction permanently - again by a process of agreement. Moderators may get sent a few threads to look over each day. Some forums will not have this option (Conversation for example) and thread will automatically be destroyed after thirty days.

We will attempt to weight the amount of moderators who must agree on something before it is done, so that small moderations (individual post deletion) may only require two moderators, while thread deletion may require three and the 'warning' of a member, four or five...

The idea for warned members (or deleting posts) is that they will be styled differently (or 'collapsed') so that people have to make a special effort to read them. They'll still exist, but people will be able to just edit them out of their experience if they want to.

Not all of these abilities may exist in the first run of the site - but in one form or another they are coming. They are designed to balance the functionality of the board with the desire of the individulas on the site to have fluid heirarchies (if heirarchies HAVE to exist) and a built-in way of avoiding censorship while still providing the benefits of a basically moderated site.
 
 
Rev. Wright
17:44 / 02.02.02
Tom I have much trust in your words, your model for moderation makes alot of sense and may well end the frustration that appears to have built.
 
 
moriarty
18:10 / 02.02.02
Looks like so far it's three against the idea, none for. I can't wait for Monday when the people who post from work see this.

I have to admit I'm biased on the issue as I only really post a maximum of five times on any given day. I think one of the main points to consider is that this is only temporary. One month. What's so tough about that? If it irks you so much that you feel the need to leave, well, it's only a one month vacation. And if you leave permanently, then maybe that's for the best.

Numerous times Tom tried to make a stand concerning the lack of growth on the board. Each time he's issued a challenge, it's lasted for all of a day before everyone went straight back to their routine. I like the idea because it's a controlled experiment. There's a very good chance that nothing good will come out of it, and we'll all just return to the status quo when the month is out. On the other hand, there's a possibility we'll be coerced into actually evolving somewhat. I'm looking forward to it, if this does take place.

Gamble a stamp. What've you got to lose?

Concerning E. Randy's thoughts on not being able to respond within a debate due to reaching your personal limit, would it be possible to make the limit pertain to the amount of threads you post to, as opposed to the amount of posts themselves. That way people could knock themselves out within a narrow field of topics on any given day. For the record, I prefer the original option, but I thought I'd mention it if you were looking for ways to be kind to the inmates.
 
 
w1rebaby
18:18 / 02.02.02
Your idea of moderation seems pretty fair, as long as there's a broad base of potential moderators and also voters when moderators are "elected".

Have you considered, instead of limiting posts per day, having an extended "time-out" period? That would reduce the number of "frivolous" posts, but wouldn't prevent you from having an extended and interesting debate over the course of an evening, and might achieve the objective of requiring people to think and read other people's contributions beforehand. I'd prefer that to posts per day, or per month, or whatever.
 
 
Trijhaos
19:13 / 02.02.02
What about a gradual increase in the number of posts? Instead of going from 3 posts a day the first month then saying the sky's the limit the second month, increase the post count each week. Start the first week at 3 posts a day, say 10 posts the second week and so on. Just a suggestion since everybody seems against the whole limit on posts.

Now a question, when should we expect to see the new, improved Barbelith?

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: Trijhaos ]
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
19:30 / 02.02.02
Well, unless the maximum posts level is something sensible, and I'm thinking here in the range 15-20, it's going to kill things dead. One of the things some people have complained about is that some of the Head Shop threads are impenetrable if you don't already know the subject. You're really suggesting someone should use one of their four posts to ask someone to define or explain something?

I would suggest as the bare minimum, count the number of forums, multiply by two. And I'd suggest we don't have the Conversation for this month period, bring it in when the limit is lifted. Otherwise, I would suggest that possibly a month (depending pn the number of posts issue) might be too short for what you want us to achieve...
 
 
w1rebaby
19:46 / 02.02.02
Out of interest, what software are you moving to - or is it going to be a hardcore custom job?
 
 
Mr. Moonlight
19:51 / 02.02.02
quote:Originally posted by moriarty:
Concerning E. Randy's thoughts on not being able to respond within a debate due to reaching your personal limit, would it be possible to make the limit pertain to the amount of threads you post to, as opposed to the amount of posts themselves. That way people could knock themselves out within a narrow field of topics on any given day.

I think that's even worse...most of us have fairly wide ranges of interest, and that's part of what makes this place as great as it is...there exists forums elsewhere in which we can talk about anything in the individual forums exclusively. This place works because it's 'one stop shopping', full of people who are just as likely to talk theory in the Head Shop as they are to talk about Spider-Man in comics or do some kind of project in Creation or chat up sigils in Magick.. if you take away the overlap, you rob the place of a lot of its appeal.
 
 
moriarty
20:02 / 02.02.02
I suspected someone might call me on that, but I figured it probably wouldn't happen. Wrong again.

A) Moriarty can only post five times today. He spends his five posts in three different threads.

B) Moriarty can post in five different threads today. He posts twenty-one times in five different threads.

B, which you say is worse, actually allows for as many different threads to be posted on as A, if not more. And more posts to boot.

While I'm here, I'd just like to add that I like W1rebaby's suggestion concerning a longer timeout between posts. The only problem would be if someone was on the clock, like in an internet cafe. It would suck to have to find something else to do while wating for your next step to the plate if you only had an hour or so to post. Just a quibble. And of course I'm thinking he means something like a half an hour between posts, when he might be suggesting two minutes or something.
 
 
Wyrd
20:43 / 02.02.02
Tom, I just thought I'd say I support your idea of limiting posts. It's an idea I considered suggesting once or twice, but didn't think it would be popular. Many, many years ago I was on a mailing list (pre-web, can you imagine!) on which there was a strict policy of limiting posts to three a day. Because there were so many members on this list, it was the only way to control the volume to an acceptable level.

The post limit is up to you, but I do think it will help. Plus, it is only short-term. However, I would suggest you consider keeping some sort of post limit in the medium-term, but bringing it up to 10-15. I'm not a crazy poster like some people on this board, so these limits won't bother me so much.

I also think it might give everyone a chance to reflect a bit more on what they say, before they say it. It won't necessarily stifle conversation or creativity as some people think.

I also think it's a good idea to freeze any new members, as you know people are going to post from multiple fictionsuits to get around the limits...

Perhaps you might want to consider doing some sort of email to all the members of the board, and deleting any members from which you get a bounced message? I'm sure there's got to be plenty of them.

Good luck, transitory periods are always fraught with struggle and change.
 
 
Ganesh
09:05 / 03.02.02
I think the three-posts-per-day limit is a generally bad idea - but then, I'm one of those individuals who's thought that about many of the changes, and subsequently embraced them. I'm prepared to be wrong again; in fact, I'm almost expecting to be wrong.

For me, an extended Private Messaging system won't be much of a consolation. I don't usually want to correspond with people much in that way and, if I do, I email them. I can't immediately see the benefits of PMing over email.

I suppose I'll give it a dry run over the next few weeks - although I suspect I may just end up staying away from the place altogether as a way of "resisting" the urge to post.

Hoping my vague forebodings are, again, proven to be baseless.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
09:40 / 03.02.02
Like Ganesh, I'm of the mind that three posts a day is a bad thing. As others have said, while it forces people to think more about their posts, it puts speedhumps on discussion (which is what we're after here, yes? More meaty discussions, less fluff?) that wouldn't normally be there, and disallows people to clarify their position on things. Fuck, I've posted three times in particular threads in an hour, let alone a day - and not necessarily ones in The Conversation. A bad move, I feel - and one that rather than emphasising community, would end up being more divisive/sanitising. Barbelith would perhaps lose some colour and gain some rather longwinded tracts. Admittedly, it'd be only over a small period of time (as I infer from the original post, anyway), but I still think it's a really bad move.

In other words; three posts (or any limit) comes across as being more of a gag than a method of winnowing. Bearing in mind that while it is voluntary (still), the fact that people are paying to use Barbelith means that you may well end up with some people being really fucked off that they're not "getting their money's worth" out of it if they're limited to a certain amount of posting per day. It encourages the idea of worthiness even more than current moderation/posting practice does, and is, on the whole, a bad thing, I feel.

Then again, now Barbelith is taking cash, is there going to be a rethink of how the place runs? Just asking; I'm aware that you cover a lot of the running costs personally, but now that there's subscribers, in effect, do they have much of a say (if any) in the way that things are done here? I mean, other than helping ease the financial burden, does something else come of the cash? While it's not had much of an impact so far - or rather, the question hasn't come to bear, as yet - if the numbers of newbies and possible payers increases dramatically, aren't they going to expect more of a free-speech (in terms of ability to post, not content thereof) area than elsewhere on the net?

Just a thought. What do you think?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
09:43 / 03.02.02
What I didn't say in that previous post but should've is that I'm pretty thumbs-up towards the ideas that're being floated for moderation types, too. They're pretty necessary, I think, and sound like a step in the right direction. I don't think the current kerfuffle around here is anything other than January shits, and so should die down soon...
 
 
Ganesh
09:50 / 03.02.02
I feel that starting a thread should imply some degree of responsibility/ownership; rather than merely abandoning the topic to go where it will, the originator should act like a sort of facilitator, with at least some duty to oversee/moderate the discussion they've started.

All of which is tricky on three threads per day...
 
 
Logos
09:50 / 03.02.02
I strongly dislike the three per day rule, even though I've posted less than 100 times in about a year, which would keep me under the limit. On the other hand, this is one of the very small number of sites I visit, read, and contribute to daily.

If you decide to limit posts, I'd recommend keeping at least one of the forums exempt from this limit (Conversation?) to maintain a maximal input from your most frequent and dedicated posters.

All the best on the forums in general, though.
 
 
FinderWolf
09:50 / 03.02.02
Well, as much I'm concerned about the future of this terrific site (you've done a really great job with it, Tom, as has everyone involved), I trust you, Tom.

By the way, when you say it will change "soon" - what do you mean exactly? You mentioned something about a month, but I wasn't sure if you meant a month to work out the kinks while it's up or while it's down.

I look forward to the future incarnation of Barbelith!! Peace --
 
 
FinderWolf
09:50 / 03.02.02
Oh, and for the record, I say keep the current categories -- and especially keep the "New World Crisis" thread. It's important, I think, and reading that subheading has been a vital part of my making sense of and forming opinions about all that has occurred since that fateful day.

I only say this because I read someone suggest closing the 9-11-related thread in the other thread, titled "Is Barbelith dying"?

What I suggest is combine "Headshop," "New World Crisis" and "Switchboard" into "New World Politics" or something like that. That way you combine three similar discussion subheadings into one....save some space.

I don't really ever read "Creation" stories or threads, so I say you can cut 'em as far as I'm concerned. But I'm aware that many aspiring writers, and those who just like to write for fun, probably love this aspect of the 'Lith, so I don't want to vote too loudly for axeing it.

Oh, and I'm also against a limit of posts-per-day, for the record.

[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: HunterWolf ]
 
 
Spatula Clarke
09:50 / 03.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Logos:
I'd recommend keeping at least one of the forums exempt from this limit (Conversation?)

Keeping that particular forum free from any 'maximum posts' rule would completely defeat the purpose of having a 'maximum posts' rule.

You've suggested splitting the Conversation side of the board away from the Revolution before, Tom, and met with some pretty stiff opposition. I'm wondering how people would feel if this was done just for the first few weeks of the reboot, instead of enforcing any posting limits. Again, the Delphi forum is available to all, so that could be made use of if anyone felt the need to simply have a chat.

That way, if it's a totally unpopular move, everyone could rest easy in the knowledge that the Conversation would be back after a short while. On the other hand, if it wasn't really missed, Pocket Barbelith could actually become useful and the main board might regain whatever it is that you think it's lost.
 
 
Cavatina
09:50 / 03.02.02
I've just read this thread through and I endorse Randy's comments in general regarding Conversation.

But I also strongly agree with Rothkoid and Ganesh about the three posts limit. In my time here, I've noticed that some of the best debate/discussion has occurred when a group who've engaged with a topic are on line at the same time, or when a discussion has *really* got going - and this frequently requires more than three posts per person to maintain the momentum. It can be exciting. So if 'quality' or substance is the goal, the proposed limit is not the way to go.

And, as some Barbelithers are also now contributing money, it would be a great pity, I think, if they stopped their payments because they felt gagged in their desire to contribute to a discussion.

Ganesh's comment about folk abandoning or not *themselves* engaging with threads they have initiated is another important point, too, I feel. It can lead to a loss of interest in the topic on the part of contributors, and lead to feelings that their contributions are not valued, or even that they are perhaps held in contempt. It'd be good to see initiators not only set out the terms of what they have in mind clearly, but also facilitate the discussion of the thread, or a least put in a comment now and then, and draw it together in some sort of summing up or conclusion. This *has* happened on occasion, most noticeably in the book club; and to have a sense of some sort of closure makes a discussion more satisfying, I feel.

Which brings me to a rather more sensitive matter - your own visibility or participation on Barbelith, Tom. Without meaning to be in any way unkind, I frequently wonder why you remain so aloof from discussions, including ones you yourself have started. In my experience, the best way to have the support of others in materialising a 'vision' is to model the sort of thing you're working towards. If you want meaty discussions, you need not only to seed the sections with thought-provoking content, but to be an active participant in them yourself.

I'm also in agreement with the points made by Rothkoid about moderation. I do think that the moderators perform a very useful role which needs to be supported. For example, I'd endorse Rothkoid's recent efforts to dissuade folk from simply posting lists of films (or whatever) and heed his encouragement to actually discuss the interesting or significant features of a film.

Barbelith is indeed a unique site/community, Tom. I do hope that the current reflections and stock-taking lead to changes which retain and strengthen its best features.
 
 
Persephone
09:50 / 03.02.02
Note: The below was pre-written and isn't specifically a response to the above, which I've just now read.

I’ve been seeing this meme going around the board: The Conversation is fluff... garbage... a guilty pleasure... a necessary evil. I’m not saying that no one here appreciates conversation and everyone here is a barbarian, obviously not. Also I’m not saying that I necessarily disagree with some of the prescriptions that have been given about what goes into The Conversation, such as troll rations.

But it does seem to me that there’s a perception of, say, the Head Shop as “high” and the Conversation as “low.” If you believe this and if you believe in high and low, then all is right with the board. As it happens, I’m more at home with the idea that it’s all high and low...

...here it is, my line that I’ve been working on all week: I’m a god of small things, except that I’m not a god. Which is to say that I appreciate small things. But not because they’re small, per se. It’s that I see bigness in small things. (And sometimes, smallness in big things, but that’s a different story.)

When I say that there’s a place for conversation, I’m not arguing for a space to let my hair down and be stupid in. Though it certainly is possible for conversation to be stupid, and that’s okay (in moderation. Everything in moderation, even moderation.) But you can also have a conversation that’ll keep you on your toes till they hurt, and that’s a good thing. Conversation is an art that you can practice and get good at.

If you don’t just look at it as a hole to throw the trash into. If you step back and see, it’s a hole like all the others in the row... and they’re all windows, and the Conversation in its way can be as enlightening as the rest of them.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.
 
 
SMS
09:50 / 03.02.02
I think I'll reserve judgment until we actually start doing it, but I do feel that if we aren't making mistakes, we aren't taking enough risks.

Somebody asked the question about whether paying members had a say in how the board is run. As far as I can tell, everybody has always had a say in the board. That's what these little conversations are.

I don't think we should all go off and use pocket barbelith while the experiment is in play. The whole point is to get us thinking differently about our posting. If we go on working around this, then nothing will change.

The bit about freezing the number of fiction suits makes sense, but I hope we have a nice message explaining technical reasons for this so we don't seem elitist.

Yes, I think of Conversation as "low" but not bad. And I see your point, Persephone.
 
 
SMS
09:50 / 03.02.02
By the way, Tom, you might want to consider not having the limit apply to the policy threads.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:50 / 03.02.02
Limiting could be a necessary (or at the very least, useful) evil- I do think 3's a bit low, though.
The moderation idea sounds good- the list of "rules" or whatever that the moderators follow could also be available somewhere on the site, so us mortals can understand what's going on when stuff gets moved/whatever.
Change is always scary, often good in retrospect. So- while I personally think the way it is now still works (or at least will do when everyone gets over their "January shits"), I will await with interest and a fair bit of trust whatever you've got planned.
One stupid question, though, as a technophobe- how will the change occur? Will the place close down and reopen somewhere else, and if so, how will we find it & will we have to re-register? Stuff like that.
And (he added, only half in jest) possibly a separate, if small, forum for people to take their personal disputes & vendettas to?

[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: Moominstoat ]
 
 
tom-karika nukes it from orbit
09:50 / 03.02.02
Would the number of posts be limited by ICQ number? only saying that, as it would not be hard to keep a couple of backup ficsuits for when you run out of posts.

Mind you, I probably never post more than two times in a day anyway.
 
 
Tom Coates
09:50 / 03.02.02
Ok. A few things to say then...

Firstly I understand the comment about me not participating in the board as much in recent months. Unfortunately my working life has changed a lot over the last year or so - my ability to keep completely up to date with Barbelith on a daily basis has been compromised.

The donations to keep the board running cannot be seen as a payment for a service for a variety of reasons - the democratic aspect of it for one - the fact that I don't think any of us want to see Barbelith become a company complete with all that entails. Because of this the whole site will continue to operate on the basis of VOLUNTARY donations towards the cost of maintaining it, and if people do get disillusioned with the board then I would expect them to cease their donations without there being the slightest repercussions as to what the board can offer. Except of course in terms of me being able to afford to keep it going. So no - at no point in the foreseeable future will people who can afford to donate get any special treatment or special powers - you're all helping to keep the board free and equal for everyone, not buying a service for yourselves.

The post timers are an interesting idea - and I appreciate people's resistance to the daily post-limits - so I think if we tried out a system like this we would probably go for AT LEAST a higher daily post-limit.

As to when the new board will launch - I'm afraid I have no control over that aspect. Cal is busy building it - and in fact has ALREADY built a functioning discussion board that essentially looks like the Underground already. It's a completely bespoke system into which we will import all the posts from the current incarnation of the site (IF WE CAN). There are still some things that need to be completed however, so you could expect the relaunch in anything from a week to two months time I should think.

The site will be located on barbelith.com - and will look pretty similar to how it does at the moment.

I hope that answers a lot of your questions...

Tom
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
09:50 / 03.02.02
quote:Originally posted by SMatthewStolte:
Somebody asked the question about whether paying members had a say in how the board is run. As far as I can tell, everybody has always had a say in the board. That's what these little conversations are.That would've been me. My point was that now that barbelith is accepting payments to access - admittedly, in the guise of donations - doesn't that fundamentally change the nature of it? I mean, it's no longer a service that's necessarily able to be as capricious or whimsical in terms of running - while everyone has a say, yes, surely those who've stuck something in the kitty are entitled - as I'm suggesting - to knowing that when they visit, they're not going to be post-limited/whatever. I'm not suggesting the planning/thrashing out process doesn't happen, but do think that the fact that people are investing not only of their thoughts and time but their money also is something that needs consideration. Yes, Tom initially bore the brunt of that - and I don't know how much of it he still does - but there's now the unnamed subscribers to the board to take into account too. And in my view, that makes the place a little less flexible in terms of things like limited post numbers. There's no suggestion of them having a greater say in the running of things - I just think it is a consideration. There is a financial aspect, however small, and people set up on monthly paypal debits are, in effect, sponsors or subscribers, despite the lack of any official framework for same.

That said, I think - and have said before, too - that the limiting numbers of fictionsuits (and having a process whereby people can vaporise their joke/unneeded suits) is a better idea, as it perhaps forces posters to think about how their suit(s) make a difference to the community - if at all.

[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: The Return Of Rothkoid ]
 
 
Fist Fun
10:24 / 03.02.02
I think limiting posts is a great idea. As long as it is only a temporary change. How would it affect the nature of discussion? The chat aspect would disappear. I would imagine that posts would become longer and perhaps better thought out. This could be an interesting experiment for a while. I would suggest a limit of five posts a day for one month.
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply