BARBELITH underground
 

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


The future of Barbelith Membership...

 
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Tom Coates
18:32 / 14.03.02
FACT ONE: Barbelith has been being plagued by serious trolling for over a month now. The trolls in question show no sign of going away. It seems fair to say that they are not going to go away - and that even if they did more would take their place... That's why we had to close down the board for new members.

FACT TWO: Without new people to keep the conversation going, Barbelith will gradually stultify and die.

THEREFORE: We're stuck between not being able to have a completely free-to-enter community and having to have some new members join the board.

This leaves two choices as far as I'm concerned - and that choice is limiting new memberships to people who are *not* going to troll - or making it enforceable to throw people off who *are* going to troll.

The problem with throwing someone off the board is that they can just reregister. We can demand that each person has their own IP address - but so what, most people who connect to the web have a non-static IP address - it changes anyway. We can demand a different e-mail address for each individual, but new e-mail addresses are incredibly easy to come across. So neither of those will work.

So how do we resolve this problem - how do we stop people registering a new identity when the first has been banned?

There are only two ways - one is exact and precise: PROOF OF IDENTITY. The other is woolier but equally useful: BARRIERS/DELAYS TO ENTRY.

Proof of identity can mean all kinds of things, but one of the things that it can mean is something like documentation - like a credit card number, or a passport. But those things require things to check them - and more to the point, they're invasive and unpleasant.

BARRIERS TO ENTRY - on the other hand - are generally frustrations on the path to joining the community - frustrations that make the process of becoming a member something htat you have to be COMMITTED to do. The theory is that only those people who really want to do something useful on the board will actually be so committed.. But of course that's not true - in fact people committed to being heard WHATEVER the consequences will also be keen enough to go through the rigmarole...

So it seems that neither of the normal ways of limiting entry will work in the case of Barbelith - but what WOULD work?

I've been thinking about this very seriously for the last few weeks, and there are a variety of solutions to the problem. All of them are difficult - none of them are utopian. But some of them may be better than the only alternative...

The alternative is - and I'm going to be quite clear on this - NO. NEW. MEMBERS.

I'm going to take a quick break, and I'll be back in a minute to outline one of the possible schemes I have in mind...
 
 
bio k9
18:40 / 14.03.02
I just posted about this in the other thread.

Sponsors for new members.

New people should be sponsored by existing members. If you let a troll into the house you get locked out with them. Its simple, only sponsor people you know and trust or risk getting the boot. And members should need 50 posts or three months membership (or something) before they can sponsor a new member, just to show they really care about this place.
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
18:41 / 14.03.02
Tom, you're the one who runs Barbelith, and I think that you do a damn fine job of it for the most part, so the decision is yours. But basically, unless you are really specific w/your definition of a troll and it's one that I agree with, I really am not cool w/either decision. And if either is enacted, I will (as I said in another thread) probably not be here much longer. For what it's worth.
Arthur Sudnam, II
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:45 / 14.03.02
Tom,

I'm new here, so I'm not sure how much my opinion is relevant especially given that I don't have all the history but...

Can't you delegate some of the responsibility of who is in and who is out to others that you trust? What I have in mind is the idea that you let people in - perhaps delay entry, but only if the board is swamped with new applications - and then ban them if they misbehave. I'm thinking of not bothering about who people are - just have some ground rules for behaviour and don't worry about others calling you a dictator.

hmmm, that came out wrong, but you know what I mean.

If others give you help in this, and new members are on some sort of probation where they are looked at a bit more closely then doesn't that save you a lot of headaches? True, you will get the same trolls returning, but I bet that if they get banned quickly when they misbehave they will start to become both obvious in each incarnation and sick of it.

Its not perfect, but you can't let the wreckers run the board.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:49 / 14.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Bio K9:
I just posted about this in the other thread.
Sponsors for new members.
Not saying it wouldn't work... but it didn't with Rage's friend Illfigure, now did it?

And if there is a backlash against the new member, then it can cost the board the goodwill of the longtime member who sponsored hir, too... as Rage seems to have stormed off...
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
19:11 / 14.03.02
Posted by Lurid Archive

"Its not perfect, but you can't let the wreckers run the board."

Can someone explain to me the mechanism for how this could actually happen?

Originally posted by Bio K9

"I just posted about this in the other thread.
Sponsors for new members.

New people should be sponsored by existing members. If you let a troll into the house you get locked out with them. Its simple, only sponsor people you know and trust or risk getting the boot. And members should need 50 posts or three months membership (or something) before they can sponsor a new member, just to show they really care about this place"

This is great but how would it work if you didn't know them IRL? If you don't then it's just a name on the screen, how are you supposed to know who they are and what they're like. If it is IRL what happens to all the more isolated posters, like myself for example?

I don't think this place is a utopian free for all, as far as I'm concerned Tom does the work, he gets to make the rules but if he's asking for opinions I'm against bringing in measures like these. I think Arthur pointed out that all this is subjective. I for example find posters like Haus and SFD far more annoying than I ever did Knowledge and far more damaging to what I think Barbelith should be. But that's the point, Barbelith isn't about what I think it should be, it's probably not what Tom envisaged it to be. I'm somewhat worried that this will end up like some online gentleman's club.

I think the troll threat has been blown well out of proportion or can someone tell me how a troll can destoy Barbelith? I'm not going to stop posting. Live with them they'll get bored and go away. How do other boards handle this sort of thing? And didn't Barbelith have a run in with another board that it managed to deal with?
 
 
Persephone
19:23 / 14.03.02
Sigh. To put in my two cents on this subject... or to go back to the strategy I was actively pursuing, which was to promote-by-participating-in threads I thought were positive and generative?

Obviously, there's a situation now that has to be dealt with and I really don't know how... but I think the board should look hard at how the situation got created, and it was not by one person's hand. It takes two to angle: one to troll, and one to bite. And at times lately, it looks like the fish are tossing up worms to bait the angler with.

I'd like to question the notion that "silence is consent." I know how it applies IRL, and in fact I can think of instances when I felt it was the right thing to back up a poster on the board. But for the most part, it seems to me that silence, no response on a BB is ignoring and almost tantamount to ostracism; many posters have ruefully commented that no one ever responds to them, that their posts seem to stop threads dead. That's how I felt when I first started on Barbelith; and truth be told I was about to pack it in, and literally on that day I decided that some kind person acknowledged my existence & I was back in a flash.

Attention is the energy that we all feed on, I think. Don't feed something that you don't want to grow and get out of control, which is what has happened. And people are *still* tossing out scraps.

If *you* cannot choose to control your own behavior, to choose to keep back a negative retort and to contribute your energy towards something good and postive... then you can be guaranteed that any other person will not do so.

The solution that is forming in my head is, just *stop* --if a justification springs to your lips, then stop that too. You *can* stop, if you think about what it does to the board to feed it negative energy instead of positive. If you don't stop yourself, then understand that this is the board that you have chosen and that you have created.

"No one can hurt you without your consent," Eleanor Roosevelt said, and in fact I don't fully agree with this statement. But anyone can hurt you a lot worse *with* your consent, and with your participation.

Be cool, everyone. Create, don't destroy. I think the board can be saved by every person turning hir forces to good; in fact that's what I think could save the world, except it won't happen. But it can happen here. It is in your hands.

It may be that Barbelith will have to be closed one way or the other until the hubbub dies down, but that's not going to happen if the inmates keep up the godawful racket.

Or I am Cinna the poet, tear me for my bad verses.
 
 
Tom Coates
19:33 / 14.03.02
This is the approach I'm considering - a kind of mentoring or sponsorship programme - people can sponsor ONE person a month after they've got through their initial month of membership. For that month, the mentor's name is displayed with the name of the person who posts.

Potentially, the person who is the mentor or the sponsor has moderator rights over the new bloke or woman - bearing in mind that all moderations he suggests have to be agreed a certain number of the forum's other moderators.

If the person RADICALLY fucks around (and I don't believe this would really happen that often) then yes it would be embarrassing to the mentor - which is why you'd hope that the person concerned would choose someone intelligent or challenging - and a reason why the person who was being mentored wouldn't fuck around, because they wouldn't want to embarrass the person who introduced them to the list...

It's not ideal - it might make the board more cliquey in the short term - but think long-term --> with six degress of separation world-wide, it should take precisely six months before ANYONE IN THE WORLD could have been invited to the board...

It also resolves the board growth issue. The board would still grow exponentially - but the absolute maximum growth would be to double each month -and that's assuming that every single person who posted to the board invited someone who agreed to come and agreed to post...

I also think it's a good approach for the newbie too - they have someone automatically in their corner from the offset - someone who will fight for them if they thin kthey're being unfairly treated. Someone who - for the first month at least - can talk to other members of the board privately and stand up for the person they've sponsored from a position of already earned respect.

I think it could work tremendously well - and although it isn't ideal, I think it might be a good balance of 1) stopping flagrant abuse, 2) getting in new members 3) limiting board-growth, 4) keeping the site interesting, stimulating etc.

Plus you would be part of one of the most experimental online web communities since The Well... I mean - that's got to be interesting in itself...? Surely?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:04 / 14.03.02
I think that the idea Tom just outlined is probably the most reasonable and fair thing that I can think of - I know a lot of people in my regular life, and some older acquaintances who I'd really like to get on this board one way or another. This sponsorship idea is probably the best next step we can take before considering open access again. And I do think that eventually we should go back to that at some point in the next year, even.

Personally, I think we should find a way to prosecute Calo, to set a precedent of "don't fuck with us", too...

Also, out of curiosity - Tom, have you read
this book?

[ 14-03-2002: Message edited by: Flux = Sweet City Woman ]
 
 
Tom Coates
20:09 / 14.03.02
Firstly to Persephone -

You're completely right - in a perfect world people would ignore trolling and engage with discussion and creativity. The board would work very well if everyone did that. But as I've said in another thread - it only takes ONE response to encourage a troll - and after a while the board is in uproar...

quote: I don't think this place is a utopian free for all, as far as I'm concerned Tom does the work, he gets to make the rules but if he's asking for opinions I'm against bringing in measures like these. I think Arthur pointed out that all this is subjective. I for example find posters like Haus and SFD far more annoying than I ever did Knowledge and far more damaging to what I think Barbelith should be. But that's the point, Barbelith isn't about what I think it should be, it's probably not what Tom envisaged it to be. I'm somewhat worried that this will end up like some online gentleman's club.

Haven't you just demonstrated why it wouldn't be a gentleman's club though? I mean - we've got a LOT of different types of people on the board - all of us have a slightly over-lapping sense of what the board should be - wouldn't our choices reflect that?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
20:11 / 14.03.02
Would this sponsorship only be open to someone who knows a current Barbelith member IRL or in another web forum?

I'm thinking of people who just stumble across this site from doing a web search on the Invisibles, chaos magic, or something else. To them, this would be like a gated community of privilege that they could look at yet not have access. (presumably, non-registered people could still READ the bored. Or not?).

And, I think the "incest" problem (or cliqueiness) would be a lot greater than you fear.

What would I propose to stop this? Well, there has to be a way for people to "apply" for membership. This may be as simple as e-mailing someone already on the board and striking up a chat. However, given that a lot of members have recently taken their e-mails off their profiles for wholly understandable reasons, perhaps this might not be the best idea.

Unless....is it possible to create a function in the board where it is possible to e-mail someone from their profile, but the person sending would NOT know the true e-mail address of the person they're mailing. Sort of like a remailer, I guess. Maybe a form on the page where non-members can send PMs to members. That would allow contact with the hoi-polloi, if you will, without seriously jeopardizing anyone's privacy except from the most malevolent people.

---Another possibility would be to open up membership and put the previously suggested limit on posting. Say 5 a day or something. Granted, someone could register multiple suits and still be a real big nuisance, but it would seriously cut down on the noise. A noise-free community that's still open is virtually impossible (and IMHO somewhat undesirable. I don't think it's good in the abstract for any community to close its borders. Someone mentioned on another thread about barbelith being a "safe space." I don't think barbelith should be a safe space in the way women's only clubs are (etc.). There's no need for that. People don't come to Barbelith because they don't feel free to express themselves in ways they can't other places, do they? Or am I missing the rationale behind a "safe space").
 
 
Shortfatdyke
20:11 / 14.03.02
i think that membership has got to be far more restrictive - but i would hope it would be a temporary measure. i don't like the thought that much, but i believe it's necessary in the current circumstances. previous suggestions - like the delay/barrier to entry - might be a good way forward.

i must quote something reid has said here:

"I for example find posters like Haus and SFD far more annoying than I ever did Knowledge and far more damaging to what I think Barbelith should be"

i dunno what haus thinks, but i find that being picked out like this - and compared unfavourably with someone who has come out with some pretty vile abuse and who is even after being banned harassing members of the board - is upsetting in the extreme. reid - we had some spats a long while ago. i have no idea why that should justify what you've said; if you have a problem with what i post, then please enter into discussion/debate.

[ 14-03-2002: Message edited by: shortfatdyke ]
 
 
Ganesh
20:17 / 14.03.02
The whole 'ignore them and they'll go away' approach has been debated inside-out and back again. It's weighted heavily in favour of the troll, who requires only one response per 1000-odd members frustratedly chewing their fingers off in an attempt to stay silent. Herding cats; it can't be done.

For one little boy whose parents didn't pay him enough attention, that's a lot of angst...

An Ignore button, as I say, would facilitate people's self-control. The mentoring idea is also good.
 
 
sleazenation
20:38 / 14.03.02
possibly an ignore button with a culiminative effect, say if 30 people ignore you, your account is automatically deleted?
 
 
Mazarine
20:53 / 14.03.02
Anyone can read the threads, right? This would be pretty labour intensive (jesus, now you've got me adding 'u's to words) but maybe have a process by which one applies for membership, have the applicant write a couple paragraphs commenting on an existing thread or proposing a new one. Perhaps whether or not to give this person membership could then be put to a vote of a random selection of members who've been around for a month or more so it's not the same people choosing every time. True, someone could just feign insightfulness and non-prick-like-ness for those couple of paragraphs, but it'd be a bother, and I think people would start to recognize the writing of the previously booted enough that they'd not invite them back.

Or hell, we could have a bi-monthly web trawling. God knows this isn't the only board on the web, people could surf around and read what others have written elsewhere and make a case for inviting them.

I don't think you, Mister Coates, need the potential legal hassles which I think would come with proof of identity, or the creepiness of it. I'd go with barriers. Some trollers will still get through.

Question, and of course, one I should know the answer to, but I so rarely crawl out of FTVT: Is there any kind of established system by which a person is booted, Tom? Number of complaints about a member, personal abuse, etc? (This isn't meant as a challenge in any way to previous bootings, I'm just wondering)
 
 
Persephone
09:11 / 15.03.02
I just want to clarify that I'm not proposing a Nancy Reaganish "just say ignore" approach to the problem. In fact I'm interested in community engineering as an evolving experiment, in which memes may still do their work... and you may consider my Norma Rae cri-de-coeur re: personal responsibility as one in the mix.

Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, I think, may be a useful read in this context.
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
09:35 / 15.03.02
I'm in the same situation as Flux in as much as I know several people who would like to get onto the board, but have had registrations rejected. Having read the opinions on this thread I have to say that I'm not entirely adverse to the whole 'spondership' idea (if only by the virtue that it seems the lesser of many evils). It also strikes me that part of the problem with trolls is - as has been pointed out - the ease of registration. A blanket ban on all new registrations not spondered by a current user is far from an ideal world, but I think it will - if not solve the problem - make the registration so laborious that those responsible will divert their pointlessness elsewhere.
Just my two pence worth...
 
 
Tom Coates
09:35 / 15.03.02
Where to start --->

1) The ignore button functionality is already working on the new board. It works in a very simple way - you click on someone's name on the board, it goes through to their profile - and there's a link in their profile that says 'ignore this person for a week' - if you click on it, every time you come across one of their posts you see 'you are currently ignoring ______'s posts' - you can turn it off at any time. In theory, you can ignore EVERY poster on the board - but I suspect that would get boring quite quickly...

Hopefully this will defuse some of the more combustible situations on the board by allowing people to take a brief step backwards and breathe...

2) To SFD and Haus - as two of the most outspoken people on the board, I think it's only natural that some people are going to find your opinions difficult to deal with. I think it's actually really helpful to compare that with abusive posters - reid, sfd and haus all co-exist on barbelith, occasionally taking each other to task for their behaviour and opinions - without resorting to plain name-calling, or trying to overthrow the board. Barbelith thrives on this kind of strong debate and disagreement - and will only collapse under the combined weights of emotional immaturity and idiocy...

3) To Todd. Barbelith is not a safe space in that it isn't a place where people should feel the SLIGHTEST anxiety about expressing unpopular opinions - as long as they can find good arguments to back them up and express them in such a way that people don't feel personally threatening. There is a difference between asking (for example) "Do gay people miss the 'simplicity' of straight sex?", proclaiming "Gay men wish they could fuck pussy" and "Tom Coates is woman-hating homo fuck". Each could emerge from the same discussion - which would certainly be a contraversial one (!), but whereas the first one would be challenging, a little alarming and a bit scary to write about - the third would be unwelcome, and the one in the middle would be ... suspect!

Barbelith is a safe space in that it's a place where we can argue and debate things, suggest things, organise things. It's not a place where discussions that challenge liberal or lefty values are verboten...

4) To Mazarine who suggested going and trawling the net for interesting people to be part of the community - then I think that would be great... If people said to themselves 'wouldn't it be great if richard dawkins or robert anton wilson were a part of this community' and decided to invite them to join, I'd be delighted - whether or not they actually decided to come. Or if they met someone on another board they thought had a new perspective or sensibility... Great! The mechanism would be simple - you agree to take responsibility for them, both in helping them acclimatise, supporting them when necessary and explaining things to them... IT doesn't matter if the person you take responsibility for is your mother, salvador dali or Mao Tse Tung - as long as you don't ignore that responsibility...

5) Mazarine - the problem with evaluating people on the quality of one or two contributions is that it's a fairly vague way of judging worth and it's fairly easy to fake... Plus that provides a job that is randomly assigned that people might not wish to undertake...

6) Finally to Persephone - I'm also REALLY interested in experimental community engineering - and my dream is a kind of mechanism which can evolve to more accurately match the structures that a community can come to a consensus on - so the political system behind the project evolves in direct consequence of the way the people on the board decide to interact.

I'll also get me a copy of that book...
 
 
moriarty
09:35 / 15.03.02
I'm sorry I have to keep this short, and I'm out the door to meet BK so I apologize if someone has already said this, but while I'll accept any measure agreed upon, it depresses me to know that if I had found Barbelith two years after I did I would never have been able to gain entry. And I'm sure the same can be applied to many people here.
 
 
Tom Coates
09:35 / 15.03.02
Absolutely. Depresses me too.
 
 
Naked Flame
09:35 / 15.03.02
since when has anything stayed the same on the net for more than a week?

Evolve, what the hell, it's that or a series of ever diminishing cyclical arguments. This place is already so much more than a board. We needn't fear change.
 
 
SMS
09:35 / 15.03.02
I don't know if anyone else feels this way (if I'm the only one, then I suppose it doesn't matter much), but I don't think I would keep coming to Barbelith if we started some of these policies. I don't know that I have any alternative suggestions (how are trolling issues at the WEF?), but I thought that this may be something to consider if we lose a large portion of our membership because of it. I don't know, though. Maybe I'll change my mind.


(The policies that would bother me would be 1. Only allowing sponsered people to post and 2. punishing members for sponsering someone they thought they could trust).

[ 15-03-2002: Message edited by: SMatthewStolte ]
 
 
Fist Fun
09:35 / 15.03.02
If there had been some strict entry system to Barbelith I just wouldn't have come here. I think to get involved in an online community you have to invest a certain amount of effort in it. To get to know the characters, the key issues, the sticking points.
If you ask people to jump through hoops before posting then they will probably just surf on out. Rather than being a web community they check on every day it will be a cool page they had a flick through once.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
09:35 / 15.03.02
Well, I don't think anyone is saying "Yay entrance control!"...Tom is proposing a set of possible solutions to the simple fact that, for the first time in a long time (RRM, for example, actually managed to keep hirself pretty much to hirself compared with the Knodge) a single user has demonstrated how much they can fuck up the process of Barbelith if they put their minds to it.

One of these methods was simply farting out offensive, attention-seeking posts. Another was moving the arena - from physical threats to email campaigns - showing how vulnerable people on the board can be to intrusions outwith it.

So, one possible way to make things more secure might be to remove email addresses, website addresses, personal details, and make, for example, the Gathering an invitation-only area - Tom nominates the people he trusts, who nominate the people they trust, and so on. But that could lead to a "gated community" feel - where the trolls rampage outside the city walls, in effect.

Of course, it could be that this is bad luck and that the incidence of trolls over time is so small that such countermeasures are unnecessary. Then again, I think we can be fairly sure that Mr. Knodge is going to keep throwing himself at the palisade, and will no doubt drum up whatever friends he can find to provide some more warm bodies.

Sooo....what to do? I'm unsure. Perhaps a weekyl ostracism? Which would be democratic and fun?

SFD - When I began referrring to reidy as a new fictionsuit of the Knowledge, it was not entirely in jest. He is rather a good example of a Knodge who has not reached critical mass. Not very bright, with a conviction that people are annoyed at him because his retorts are far too clever for them, and a not dissimilar air of unexamined saloon-bar bigotry justified to self and others as a stand for free speech against the foul armies of Political Correctness Gone Mad. What exactly his "project for Barbelith" is I am unsure, but I am quite happy to be considered damaging to it. However, he is in general able to coexist with others on the board, and even find chums with whom to assault those threatening castles in the sky where Political Correctness Gone Mad lurks. No biggie. Could be quite entertaining to chat about it, mind...

On the Warren Ellis forum - the WEF is very tightly moderated. As I understand it, disagreeing with Warren Ellis is usually enough to receive banning orders, so presuambly a concerted spoiling campaign would not go unremarked for long. Giving Tom carte blanche to expel people according to personal fiat would certainly be one way to resolve this issue.

And yes - anyone care to fill in the history of the Technoccult? Or indeed the night of a Thousand Elois?
 
 
bio k9
09:35 / 15.03.02
I got booted from the WEF after one post.
 
 
bio k9
09:35 / 15.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Jack Fear:
Not saying it (sponsors for new members) wouldn't work... but it didn't with Rage's friend Illfigure, now did it?

That was a little different. Illfigure sort of snuck in under her coat or used a fake ID or something. An old suit, one that everyone knew belonged to Rage, shows up and starts popping off while, at the same time, knucklehead tries to crack the passwords to other peoples suits... What else could Tom do?

quote:And if there is a backlash against the new member, then it can cost the board the goodwill of the longtime member who sponsored hir, too... as Rage seems to have stormed off...
Rage has had more farewell tours than the Stones at this point...she'll be back as soon as shes bored.

[ 15-03-2002: Message edited by: Bio K9 ]
 
 
ephemerat
09:35 / 15.03.02
Bio: What on earth did you post? Or did he confuse you with someone else who'd been posting shite?

In my experience Warren 'Stalin' Ellis normally allows one life - one warning before ejection. If you only occasionally make outrageous remarks you can last a long time.

The Knodge would have been out in less than one hour.

[ 15-03-2002: Message edited by: ephemerat ]
 
 
bio k9
09:35 / 15.03.02
Well, it was a long time ago. I started a thread saying that if everyone on the WEF would quit complaining about everything and just create something they would be a lot happier. And that if they, as a group, had half the talent they claimed they could save the industry overnight. Thread vainished after five minutes as did my ability to post.

I went back under BioK9 a short while ago and asked a guy (who was quoting Bill Walton and Star Trek to make a point about 9/11) if he was retarded. Ellis gave me my warning.

That place just ain't for me I guess.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
09:35 / 15.03.02
I think the sheepdogging idea could work quite well. I can see that it has the potential to make the board a little bit cliquey, but I can't see why it should be any more so than it already is... sheepdogs wouldn't have to agree with their newbies, just make sure they didn't do something idiotic (like libelling someone). I mean - I disagree with most of my friends about something, even if that something is only whether Burglar Bill is better than The Little Worm Book...
 
 
ephemerat
09:35 / 15.03.02
To actually state my position: I fled here from the WEF precisely because of the freer atmosphere. In my time at there I (personally) never encountered any problem with other posters greater than moderate irritation or boredom, got on well with many other members and (intermittently) enjoyed some genuinely interesting discussion.

Barbelith seemed in comparison somehow more vital. Debates were freewheeling, and while often derailed the site seemed to police itself well and any thread could rapidly return to subject matter with refreshing alternate perspectives. In comparison, Stalin's reign of fear, while excluding and censoring the worst instances of racism, homophobia, sexism or basic trolling seemed to have a stultifying effect on debate for many posters.

No, I don't post very often at the moment (due to external circumstances). No, I was never the most challenging or entertaining member of this ship while I still was posting with greater frequency. But I doubt I would have joined if the community was gated - I too worry of the more subtle effects that sponsorship may entail. It will certainly change the flavour of Barbelith.

But then perhaps it is worth the experiment? Even if only temporarily. How often are we going to encounter a serious troll? Considering the length of time that Barbelith has run fairly efficiently without measures like these?
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
09:35 / 15.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Kit-Cat Club:
even if that something is only whether Burglar Bill is better than The Little Worm Book...


I've got a plank, you know.
 
 
Tom Coates
09:35 / 15.03.02
Haus - although I'm prepared to accept that you didn't start it, I'm not entirely sure that name-calling is going to solve ANY of the problems here!

I appreciate people's anxieties - but think of it this way... In what other medium would a 'society' like barbelith *ever* have been this open? We could have just come across the first big issue of the online community with a point - that giving every single online person in the world access to barbelith isn't necessarily going to make it a more interesting place for those of us who are here already...

At the moment *no one* can join and worse - no one can read it either! We're trying to ease that situation - for good or ill...
 
 
Cherry Bomb
09:35 / 15.03.02
As someone who was actually followed around on this board (in a very creepy fashion!), I have to say I like the idea of people being invited into certain areaas - ESPECIALLY gathering, actually. (Remember the whole Knowledge issue with my first London meet-up? Talk about a fucking nightmare!)

Still, like moriarty if certain policies had existed when I joined I never would have been able to.

I think perhaps the best solution may be something like limit on new memberships per week, time period before you can post AND maybe the proof of ID thing. That's kind of a pain in the ass but it would sort of help Tom. It would discourage people from joining just to cause shit, and if they DID cause shit, Tom would ostensibly know who they are.
 
 
Sax
09:35 / 15.03.02
We all know how to deal with trolls in real life. You get an annoying little cuntchops who keeps hassling you, you ignore them. If that doesn't work, you ask them to go away. If that fails to get the desired effect, you whisper quietly but firmly: "If you don't leave us alone I'm going to rip your spleen out." The cuntchops continues, and you either walk away or deliver a smooth punch to the chin.

Obviously, that sequence of events just doesn't work on a message board, for varying reasons.

I personally am not against controlling access to the board per se, but that's because I'm all warm and comfortable inside and while I might not be one of the most active or well-known members of Barbelith, I have been here long enough, I think, to have my own nicely-furnished flat and be on at least nodding acquaintance with a few people.

However, I remember when I first arrived, through the front page of The Bomb. Took me ages to work up the bravery to make my first post. Possibly that was because Barbelith was the first (and so far only) bulletin board I've ever been on. I can't really see me signing up for anything else; I'm not a bboard person, I'm a Barbelith person.

Would I try to join Barbelith under the current climate? Would I try to join Barbelith if I had to go through rigorous acceptance procedures? Probably not. However, (puts on flat cap and strokes whippet) there didn't seem to be the current problems when I first joined The Nexus.

So, in essence, yeah, restrict entry for a bit. But I suspect that on my part at least, there's more than a grain of "fuck 'em, I'm in," involved in that.
 
 
ephemerat
09:35 / 15.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Cherry Bomb:
something like limit on new memberships per week, time period before you can post AND maybe the proof of ID thing.


*Not* the ID thing. Please.

I doubt I could prove my ID at present and can imagine many in similar circumstances.

Sponsorship and/or auto-ejection with sufficient 'Ignores' sounds good.
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply