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.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 45 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 389724
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: So
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 17th Oct 2009 00:19 UTC 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

RE[3]: So
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 17th Oct 2009 07:16 in reply to "RE[2]: So"
StephenBeDoper 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.
"

That's true, there's always going to potential for abuse.

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.


It's been a few years since I've spent much time there, but I'll guess: the Battlefront? It definitely a cess pool, I suspect the only reason the admins there keep it around is to prevent "OS contention" from spilling into the other forums.

Reply Parent Score: 2