After weeks of hard work, I would like to introduce you to version 1.0 of the "OSNews Style Guide: Rules and Guidelines for Publishing and Participating on OSNews" [.pdf]. Read on for some small notes on what this actually means.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-21
You're welcome to disagree...although I *was* here before you (and in fact some time before we could create user acccounts), and in my recollection there was much more trolling back then.
I'm not sure you can know who was here first, only who created an account first (and I was a passive reader long before that), but honestly, I don't care. It's irrelevant. I don't think the moderating works because:
1) It's abused. Frequently.
2) The same flamebait posts occur, but now they are accompanied by "boo hoo I was modded down" posts and smug "I'm gonna mod you up/down for that" posts.
I recently read a thread that consisted of many posts, mostly people responding to NotParker who really did litle more than defend Windows on a number of points and was responded to with down-modding and (hollow) threats of violence to his person. The modding was not in his favor at all, but taking the entire thread holistically, he held the moral highground and maintained mostly-cogent arguments whilst his detractors descended into personal insults and complaining. In my view, the modding system, just gave a group of zealots the opportunity to browbeat someone they didn't agree with.
The fact that I now can't recall even the subject of the thread (in order to link to it), says a lot about how distracting this system is.
Edited 2007-02-13 17:42
Member since:2005-07-02
1) It's abused. Frequently.
2) The same flamebait posts occur, but now they are accompanied by "boo hoo I was modded down" posts and smug "I'm gonna mod you up/down for that" posts.
1) I disagree. I think abuses are rare, and could easily be handled with meta-moderation, which is possibly in the works, if I understand correctly
2) Most people seem to agree that there is less flamebait, therefore it has a positive effect, and off-topic posts about moderation are themselves moderated (unless they are in an appropriate thread, such as this one), which all goes to show that the system works
I recently read a thread that consisted of many posts, mostly people responding to NotParker who really did litle more than defend Windows on a number of points and was responded to with down-modding and (hollow) threats of violence to his person. The modding was not in his favor at all, but taking the entire thread holistically, he held the moral highground and maintained mostly-cogent arguments whilst his detractors descended into personal insults and complaining.
Well, I can see why you don't like the moderation system if you think NotParker held the moral high ground. While he *sometimes* posted reasonable messages (I've even modded him up a couple of times), the vast majority of his posts were either a) personal attacks (he would basically accuse anyone that did not agree with him of being cultists) or b) off-topic (where he would try to sidetrack the debate to create flamewars).
Also, the "threats of violence" against him were blown *way* out of proportion...that you would even mention them suggests to me that you were biased towards him, perhaps because you both shared the same views about Windows. Even if you *did* share the same views, that is not a reason to condone his trolls, flamebaits and personal attacks.
The geist of your criticism seems to rely on the assumption that pro-Windows posters get unfairly modded down because of their views, not because they abuse the OSNews rules of conduct. This, however, can easily be disproven. Look a some dedicated pro-Windows posters, such as n4cer or MollyC. Despite the fact that they consistently post pro-Windows news, they do so in a respectful and (mostly) non-controversial manner. As a result, not only are their posts not modded down much, they are often modded up, giving them above-2 trust ratings.
If what you were implying was true, then these two posters (among others) should have low (or even negative) trust ratings, like NotParker had.
I'm sorry to say that using NotParker as a poster child will only reinforce the notion that the moderation system actually works!
P.S. The NotParker thread can't have been that recent, since he was banned quite some time ago.
Edited 2007-02-14 03:02
Member since:
2005-07-02
Well I've been here quite some time now too and I disagree with you.
You're welcome to disagree...although I *was* here before you (and in fact some time before we could create user acccounts), and in my recollection there was much more trolling back then.
How about you mod me down? !-)
Why would I do that? You haven't been abusive, offensive or off-topic, so I have no reason to moderate you. You're welcome to disagree with me...after all, it you want to be wrong about this, you're free to do so. :-)