Page 3 of 3

Re: Is this a joke?

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:24 am
by Joaz Banbeck
hanekomu wrote:...
Having authority watch you is like being - in the best case - guests in someone's house and under constant threat of being thrown out if you say something the authority doesn't like. The alternative - and one that I'd prefer - is that we can feel like we're meeting in a public, open space, a park perhaps, where we can talk about anything we want, slightly controversial or not.
...


Your analogy of "someone's house" is very accurate. All websites belong to someone. They are all private property.

Every time that you visit private property, be it a house, a store, a restaurant, or whatever, you are "...under constant threat of being thrown out...". If I am a guest in your home, you can throw me out for saying something you don't like. You can throw me out for having brown eyes if you wish.

Most reasonable property owners don't abuse this authority. If they did, their guests would not come back. When you visit your favorite restaurant, they can throw you out if they wish. But do you feel uncomfortable there because of it? Your local movie theater can throw you out, but do you feel uncomfortable there?

It is often the 'public spaces' where we feel most uncomfortable. Do you like the feeling in your local post office or your local courthouse or your local DMV? Would you let your kids play unsupervised in the local public park? Would you bother to read rec.games.go?

The problem with the public area where anybody can say/do anything is that somebody eventually does. And that ruins it for everybody.


Ultimately, what most of us want is a contradiction. We want the feeling of freedom that comes with knowing that we can say or do as we please. And we want the feeling of security that comes with knowing that other people will not seriously abuse that freedom.

Most restaurants/theaters/bars/stores provide this very unobtrusively. Some have a doorman/clerk who will not let someone in who is cleary drunk or raving or otherwise unpleasant. If someone does get in and then is disruptive, they will quietly ask that person to calm down or leave. They have the ability to deal with disruptions in a way that is both private and immediate.

A forum like L19 tries to mimic this scheme. The one difference is that there is so little privacy. We can't take someone aside in real time and quietly ask them not to do something. We can do something privately - like send them a PM, but it has little effect until they log in again. We can do/say something immediately - like editing or deleteing a post, but then it is public.
We don't have the ability to step in in a way that is both immediate and private. We can let the disruption remain while we act privately, or we can act publicly. But unlike your local store or restaurant, we can't do both.

Re: Is this a joke?

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:35 am
by topazg
Joaz Banbeck wrote:Your analogy of "someone's house" is very accurate. All website belong to someone. They are all private property.


I agree, but remember that L19 does not belong to the administrators and moderators. L19 belongs to the domain owner.

General contribution from me

I believe the roles that the admins have are that of maintenance, support and administration of the forums and their structure. The admins therefore serve the community by keeping it operational.

I believe the roles of the moderators is in maintaining the atmosphere and content of the threads, and the conduct of posters. The moderators therefore serve the community by keeping it civil.

The admins have a de facto power to moderate, but that is not their primary function. I thoroughly agree with the decision that was made to appoint moderators on a public vote, as they hold the responsibility endowed upon them by the forum users to serve appropriately. The appointment of administrators in the same manner is not appropriate as this is suited to those with technical understanding and capabilities, and these may not be obvious or apparent to those voting.

However, I do believe in the accountability of selection processes, and I do think having admins that are very active in moderation without having been also part of the public selection process is liable to cause resentment, and I suspect some of the issues that have arisen recently are in this category. I am not entirely clear on the best way forward, but I do believe that those with moderation rights should not be above accountability to the forums overall. I also believe that if their suitability for the role is being questioned enough to create more than one thread on the issue, they should be prepared to stand for an approval/rejection/abstention vote with regards to their moderation rights.

Regardless of whether or not I think my moderation actions are "right", or "in the best interests of the community", I feel democratically voted into the rule and equally votable back out of it, and I think the same should go for all of us with elevated rights.

Re: Is this a joke?

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:39 am
by Kirby
topazg wrote:...

The admins have a de facto power to moderate, but that is not their primary function. ....


I agree with this. I will try to get to the improvements I have been wanting to make on the go diagrams shortly :)

Re: Is this a joke?

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:09 pm
by kokomi
Kirby wrote:It is not necessary to point it out at all.


Image

Re: Is this a joke?

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:06 am
by gaius
topazg wrote:(...) I think the same should go for all of us with elevated rights.

Wowzers, you moderators have "elevated rights"! Does that mean you get to have free cookies here?

Re: Is this a joke?

Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:27 am
by amnal
Helel wrote:
Joaz Banbeck wrote:Your analogy of "someone's house" is very accurate. All website belong to someone. They are all private property.


I do not believe in property, much less private property. As I have stated before: The only right you have is the right to suffer.
You may hold on to your property, your house, your life, but sooner or later you will lose it all.

You seem to think that "owning" anything gives you the right to set up the rules there. This is to me a very strange notion. :-?

Joaz Banbeck wrote:Every time that you visit private property, be it a house, a store, a restaurant, or whatever, you are "...under constant threat of being thrown out...". If I am a guest in your home, you can throw me out for saying something you don't like. You can throw me out for having brown eyes if you wish.


Yes, and you can get a shotgun and blow my head off. Better to keep things civil.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:It is often the 'public spaces' where we feel most uncomfortable. Do you like the feeling in your local post office or your local courthouse or your local DMV? Would you let your kids play unsupervised in the local public park?


Hmm, this must be something American or at least Big City. The local courthouse is very nice.
(But there are no post offices any more. Not cost efficient.)


Joaz Banbeck wrote:Ultimately, what most of us want is a contradiction. We want the feeling of freedom that comes with knowing that we can say or do as we please. And we want the feeling of security that comes with knowing that other people will not seriously abuse that freedom.


Anyone can do whatever is physically possible for them and take the consequences of their actions. Some actions will get you killed by the mob, other actions to being gunned down by the police. This is freedom.


Either Joaz's point flew wide of the mark, or you deliberately stepped out of the way. I suspect the latter...