Anarchy was really the wrong word to use here.

I know many people who will be obnoxious assholes who will be obnoxious purely for the joy of knowing that what they do will not be altered (very much). I agree with this idea, but it should've been unannounced, until the trial waas over, and only those of us observant enough to notice it was as it is would have been affected by it. I believe that we will see hordes of stupid comments appearing just so that people may say, "Wow, i just said that and it hasn't been removed."

I think this could work, and truly hope that people at large are not as immature as many that I know. Good luck.

What would be the point of an unannounced trial?

well, people would have just been posting as normal, no more, and no less, than usual, but w/out their posts being deleted if they are offt-topic, or somewhat contrary, etc. and that, i believe, would have given a more accurate picture of just 'how bad' the anarchic(?) style of posting would have been. People would have been surprised, or at least teh majority would have been, at the fact that ticalc had been doing this, and it would have given a clearer picture for people when they vote yea or nay. Then the stupid kids would have started in with their gay-ass posts, but we still would've seen less of this crap in decidiing whether we like censorship. I am here a lot of the time (not like Bryan, but quite a bit) and i don't see _that many_ stupid posts, because often the threat of force works better than the action itself.

That was a bit rambling, but i hope i got my point across.

Yeah but its somewhat unfair to give someone a test when they don't know they are being tested.

I think ticalc.org needs to find the right balance between censorship and anarchy. I think it should be simply to delete comments that either totally destroy the layout of the page, contain vuglar language, or links to porno, or anything along those lines. Anything else should stay. But deleting posts simply because they don't agree with what the poster said is stupid.

I agree with what you say about deleting certain comments that are excessively vulggar oe otherwise.

Testing someone without their knowledge is not really unfair. The test itself is not even really a test. Ticalc was simply wondering whether it would totally destroy the appeal of the comment boards, should tehy decide to stop deleting comments that are somewhat obnoxious, or that they don't "like". The test, i believe, was only intended to help, and could have helped better hzad the idiot flamers not known it was going on, you know the ones, they post one message as flamebait, and refuse to respond to the queries and responses it recieves. As I click 'Post', i see that there are over 260 comments on this board. I rest my case.

The reason there are over 260 comments on this board is that a majority of them are constructive, positive discussion about the issue at hand - censorship. If ticalc.org was deleting comments, most of my comments would be gone, hence there would only be about 60 left. :)

Actually, I would choose to disagree. Keeping the normal circumstances intact is closer to getting true data, rather than letting the whole world know and see how they respond. I believe most of the posters using vulgar language posted deliberately, knowing their posts wouldn't be deleted, or to test how far ticalc.org is willing to go with their non-censorship.

~ferich

Had this trial been unannounced we would see lots of people's posts that have not been deleted but should have. This would have lead to many people replying that ticalc should moniter thier boards more closely. It just seems easier to tell the public and then have them make decisions based on that.

Jake

And frankly, I think some people are confused about what comments should and should not be deleted. ticalc.org has recently referred to some "unwritten rules" they use to delete comments, which I think they should spell out explicitly. If they really delete comments that they think are "untrue", why don't they specify that in the guidelines?

But Bryan, then they wouldn't be "unwritten!" ;P

~ferich

Wow, you are quick. :) That's right, there shouldn't be any "unwritten" rules, especially if they aren't "common sense" rules.

Ironically, ticalc.org put the "common sense" rules on the guidelines list (i.e. - no swearing, no flamming, etc.), and the non-"common sense" rules are left "unwritten", such as posting comments that are against what ticalc.org thinks.

I would propose using a rating system, like the system used on slashdot.org. It works quite well. About once a month every registered user get five points that the can give or remove from comments. User cannot post under stories they have moderated to prevent abuse. And since each user only has 5 points, he cannot do much harm. They you can decide which level of article you want to see.. It really is a nice system... I would propose you try something like that...

I've actually given this a lot of thought in the past, and I must say that slashdot has a very nearly perfect system with user moderation. Unluckily, I don't think the same system will work here for a couple of reasons. For one, the slashdot user base is considerably larger than ours. Also, they track considerably more about the users than we do (in fact, we don't do any tracking at all). Slashdot moderator point distribution is based on the amount of time you spend on their individual article pages, on a sliding weekly average. Beyond this, slashdot has had a lot of problems with their system. Rob recently implemented "Metamoderation," which is his solution to claims of unfair moderation. This feature also depends on a tremendously huge userbase.
I do agree with you though, user moderation is very, very nice, but I don't think it will work in ticalc.org's case.
--
Phil

can it be tested on ticalc.org to see if it would work? I do agree that Slashdot's system works because of it's large userbase, but it could work here with a few minor changes to the system. For example, Each user is given 5 moderations per month and can only be used during that month. Then Develop a 2 or 3 tier threshold system and let users vote on which comments are board worthy or not.

This option might not be the best, but it sure beats the Option 3 being proposed after this 'anarchy' option is tested.

Did you say you wanted the users to vote on each individual comment? Wouldn't that be a lot of voting?

Also take note, this is not total anarchy. I propose a compromise. ticalc.org should not delete comments unless they

1.) Disrupt the layout of the page (i.e. - have 1,000 blank lines)
2.) Contain links to offense material (i.e. - porno)
3.) Use vuglar language (i.e. - swearing)
4.) Are obviously WAY OFF-TOPIC (i.e. - the TI-Files bashing comment on this page)

Other than that, the comments should stay. Again I repeat that the problem lies in the fact that ticalc.org was deleting comments that followed the guidelines, yet they didn't like what the poster had to say. That isn't right.

<<4.) Are obviously WAY OFF-TOPIC (i.e. - the TI-Files bashing comment on this page)>>

That wasn't the only off-topic conversation in this message board was it comrade?

Jake

"comrade" LOL

~ferich a.k.a. Stalin (just a joke, don't send me hate mail)

No, but it was the most obvious.

I think 90% of the problems with the comments will be resolved if the ticalc.org staff does not try to attack Bryan. Remember you dont have to reply to all comments. He notices when you delete his comments.

I think the only comments that should be deleted are the ones that use profanity, and obnoxious ones. (ie. your site sucks ass. YOUR GAME SUCKS.) Pretty much anything that would make another person very angry.

I agree. SO EVERYONE THAT IS SWEARING, STOP OR ELSE IT WILL GO BACK TO THE OLD SYSTEM! YOU KNOW! THE "COMMUNIST" SYSTEM!

Not swearing, but "swearing in an xcessive manner, or one that offends in the extreme"

A damn, hell, shit or even fuck is acceptable when used appropriately within the context of the post.

Keyword- "Appropriately"

You can express you viewpoint to its zenithic extent by the use of elementary and advanced adjectives. Profanity is just a vehicle for those who crave attention by expressing themselves monosyllabically.

Notice it is hardly ever that ticalc.org "attacks" Bryan. I dare you to find one on this page.

~ferich