Customize

A humble proposal.

Discussion in 'Support Questions' started by Anonymous, Oct 21, 2010.

  1. BLiP Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Happy to help.
  2. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Also, OP for admin.
  3. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    If you could define your interpretation of the word "abuse" that would greatly help weighing the pro's and cons of your considerably interesting idea.
  4. Re: A humble proposal.

    The hive regulates this currently. How are adding rules going to add extra benefit?
  5. TinyDancer Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Does dox = proven? Surely you realise that even bits of paper and video clips are capable of being fabricated or ambiguous.

    If proof (balance of probabilities? beyond reasonable doubt?) is your standard, then EVERYTHING MUST BE TREATED WITH SKEPTICISM.

    We're not talking about deciding proof for the purpose of determining guilt or innocence. We're deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant the statement being made on an internet discussion board without needing to highlight it or infract the poster for undue speculation.

    "DM beats his staff" should not be infracted, nor highlighted, in my view. Nor should the poster be required to restate the evidence (which is manifold).
  6. TinyDancer Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    The mods regulate this by infracting tinfoil speculation. I explained my approach in deciding whether or not to infract. It's not a new rule.
  7. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I disagree on the ground that we are not talking about adding rules, but finding viable venues for speculation; permitting us to do with less rules (and moderation).
  8. theLastAnon Member

    Re: A humble proposal.


    forumswhyweprotestnetsc.jpg


    forumswhyweprotestnetsc.jpg
  9. Re: A humble proposal.

    Let me rephrase: How has the use of infractions in the past benefited the hive past what it already does not achieve itself?

    BTW I have never heard of a contention towards you. In that case you are a model mod.
  10. TinyDancer Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Are you suggesting that, without the infractions for blatant tinfoil speculation, we'd have no more tinfoil posts/threads?

    Lurk moar. :p
  11. Re: A humble proposal.


    No i'm asking a question on your opinion.

    How about "are you suggesting" ?
  12. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    You stated "DM does beat his staff" and said that it's documented. Neither of those statements can be supported by what evidence we have. Tell me, why should I just accept "DM does beat his staff" as true? Because people with an axe to grind said so? I don't think people should be infracted for saying that because of tinfoil. But I also don't see how you can say that we know DM beats his staff. But hey, if you say it enough maybe it will be true. Carry on.
  13. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Such cases as the above are indeed blatantly counter productive, do i take rightly you suggest the mods have more frequent internal reviews, possibly reprimanding misconduct by for example suspension or even revocation of mod privilege?
  14. theLastAnon Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Yes.
  15. Hicks Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    You people need to get a sense of humor

    And I mean everyone in this thread.

    That being said, I already suspended myself from moderating for months, and it feels quite good.

    I think i'll keep that up until I have something productive to bring to the community.
  16. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I will have to see how this fairs with other mods / admins. Please keep into account the limited amount of people volunteering to fill vacant moderator positions as well as the (dependent on moderator: frequent) possibility of intoxicated moderation.
  17. Re: A humble proposal.

    so many variables at work. The plot thickens.
  18. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Give Herro the keys to your account.
  19. theLastAnon Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    There is a frequent possibility that I'm intoxicated while posting, so I can appreciate that and the other challenges you face as a admins and mods.
  20. BLiP Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Heh! The devil's in the detail, of course.

    What I am suggesting is a far higher, "letter-of-the-law" adherence to existing standards when posting anonymously. Thus, any and all smart arse, shit stirring, derailing, abusive, tin foil, generally disparaging of all scientologists, etc, comments are automatically infracted. If a commentator wants to indulge in that sort of behaviour then, carry on, but do it under your own avatar in which case the chances of infraction are not so great and everyone gets a glimpse into the nature of the poster. In other words, grow some balls or STFU. This policy, as I see it, would accommodate the safety/wariness aspects of the objectors to removing the anonymous facility all together, while also, I suspect, make some of the bozos actually think before pressing "submit".
  21. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Anything in the world and the nets BUT THAT
  22. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Might be a good idea. Might make sense for anonymous posting to be temporarily revoked if it's badly abused--used to make threats etc.
  23. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    While this is indeed an interesting idea, I see no obviously viable way to implement it. How would one gain the "privilege" of posting anonymously? Who would decide who is "worthy" enough to post anonymously?

    A well thought out anonymous post should be able to stand on its own merits. It should not matter who made the anonymous post.

    A poorly thought out or just plain trolling anonymous post deserves any and all helpful feedback, ridicule or reciprocal trolling from other posters.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Why not?
  25. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    If I get intoxicated, do I qualify to be a mod? (joke)
  26. BLiP Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    For example: you may not post anonymously until you have made 100 comments. You will lose the right to post anonymously after, oh, I dunno, three infractions after which your post count goes back to zero and you start again.

    Absolutely. But if you are going to be a dick AND post anonymously, take the infraction and suck it up.
  27. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    In a nutshell sensibilize users of the anonymous posting function that it is not a scapegoat for blurting obscenities?

    I could live with that, there are some slight technical limitations but i like the idea.
  28. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    OK, I change my mind, that's actually a good idea.
    Agreed. Posting anonymously doesn't prohibit anyone from receiving infractions. (I've been infracted before for stupid anonymous posts.)
  29. Re: A humble proposal.

    I can't see how this is going to be a solution. Can anyone enlighten me?
  30. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Probably not.
  31. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Doubt it.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    negative
  33. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    no - because you are so dense light bends around you
  34. theLastAnon Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    This is an idea with merit. It would limit trolling as some will stop posting their nonsense if they can't hide to do it. The 100 comment threshold slows the ease of creating sock accts in order to just troll anonymously. Although we would likely see a surge in new accounts for a while. People would be much more likely to post less bullshit and think more before posting. No one's right to free speech is being limited.

    EDIT: See the 4 posts above mine for valid reasons to do this as soon as possible.

    It is one thing of value we have, and if you are too fuckwitted, it can be taken away.

    Very nice.
  35. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    irony of paradoxical proportions ITT
  36. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    By taking away the option to post anonymously, you may seriously be putting some Anons who have done much for Chanology at risk.

    Another option? Make anonymous posting the requirement. There'd be no personal attacks. No doxing (or worse). No egos. I see more positives to this than to the alternative. Mods would still have access so could act accordingly re: infractions, etc.
  37. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    No one's talking about eliminating anonymous posting.
  38. theLastAnon Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Under the draft proposal being discussed, posters would only lose the ability to post anonymously for being tarded in their posting behavior while anonymous. And they can earn it back. The anons you are talking about shouldn't have to worry about it.
  39. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Looking at the average london thread has proven differently, doxing drama and outing of anonymous posters happens regardless of all posters using the function or not. Sorry but i find your argument to be dishonest to say the least, i hope it doesn't hurt your ego.
  40. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Just for fun, perhaps mods can try an experiment of forced anonymous posting in YSOSRS subforum

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins