Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Oct 2009 19:48 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes For a very long time now, OSNews' comment sections were governed by a set of rules that dated back to the very early days of OSNews. This set of rules has been amended a number of times over the years, but we were never really comfortable with such a dry, silly list of arbitrary rules that nobody read anyway. They were too much like an... EULA. So, we decided a change was in order, and I started work on a completely new approach.
Thread beginning with comment 389668
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So
by sbenitezb on Fri 16th Oct 2009 20:17 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

So nothing has changed. No one in the whole internet reads or explicitly agrees with any imposed terms. It is granted for us that in real life we can say whatever we want without having to agree to anything beforehand, even if what we say brings consequences.

In real life, if an asshole starts badmouthing you and the issue escalates, you can punch him. It is a very primitive behavior, but very rewarding. Somehow the assholes of the real world have to shut up or tone down or they get kicked in the face. You can't do that through a web site, unfortunately (I know I deserve some punches too).

Reply Score: 3

RE: So
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 16th Oct 2009 20:21 in reply to "So"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I have the virtual equivalent of a punch in the face.

It's called a ban button.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: So
by darknexus on Fri 16th Oct 2009 20:29 in reply to "RE: So"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Really? By some of the posters that are still allowed to post here, you could've fooled me. Then again, perhaps they're just too funny to get rid of.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: So
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 17th Oct 2009 00:19 in reply to "So"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

So nothing has changed. No one in the whole internet reads or explicitly agrees with any imposed terms. It is granted for us that in real life we can say whatever we want without having to agree to anything beforehand, even if what we say brings consequences.


Going by the example of the ArsTechnica forums, the biggest value is that it aids consistent moderation. Even if people don't read the rules, the rules are still there for the moderators to reference when banning/warning posters for negative behaviour. And if there are specific, easily available rules, it (should) make it less likely that moderators will moderate based on nothing but personal whims.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: So
by kaiwai on Sat 17th Oct 2009 07:00 in reply to "RE: So"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Going by the example of the ArsTechnica forums, the biggest value is that it aids consistent moderation. Even if people don't read the rules, the rules are still there for the moderators to reference when banning/warning posters for negative behaviour. And if there are specific, easily available rules, it (should) make it less likely that moderators will moderate based on nothing but personal whims.


Even when there are rules they aren't applied evenly and consistently - the best example of this would be the YouTube flagging system where by a person might say something and then a group will gang up by conducting a flagging campaign. The videos are never manually moderated and only done by the numbers flagging it and some other variables.

As for Arstechnica forum - they banned me simply because I retaliated against a person who deliberately goes around winding people up; and guess what? that person is still there, still posting and not a single thing happened to them. If you're ignoring the source of the attack then you're doing a crap job moderating. If the person didn't lay the original flame bait then the flame would never have occurred. Yes, the flamer is responsible for his actions but so is the person laying the bait - in fact, I would say that baiter should be banned and not the flamer because the baiter only placed the bait to get a reaction and destroy any purposeful discussion in the forum. In other words he provides no positive contribution to the discussion at all.

Reply Parent Score: 2