Anthony,

Many than ks for your 2c. I agree that we have a mission - we are pro-human rights, pro-democracy.

I suppose I have a basically Habermasian view of how that mission relates to a public discursive space like oD. An "open source" model, I think, translates into the quiet confidence in the power of the basic democratic discursive values, and these have to shine through all the publication models that oD unites under its butterfly. Being "open source" provides a model for practising what we speak.

An early attempt at thinking about this was the debate I convened with Plato, Mill, Habermas and Cmdr Taco :) . I am sure it needs some updating after more than 1 year of practice.

The minimally-edited, slightly moderated forums need to elaborate their place in this scheme so that we can make practical decisions when hard cases turn up.

Tony

One minor suggestion: A specific place for people to complain about the moderators.

It's not that I have any criticism of them myself, it's just that it would avoid bogging down the discussion threads and maybe provide a valuable resource for those that run the site (as all the complaints will be in the one place, rather than scattered across the forums).

Improving the ability to track comments made by certain posters would also be nice.

I think a code of conduct would be problematic.

Basically, they are only as good as their enforcement. Most sites have a page somewhere that explains the intent of their forums. Few read them and even fewer adhere to them.

If such a code was established for oD, then I think that some form of elected dictatorship (moderators elected on a fixed term basis) would be needed to ensure it was lived up to - deleting or editing those who step over the lines. It would need to be more or less dictatorial or else the decisions would be constantly challenged and threads bogged down with arguments over the interpretation of the code. What the moderators decide would have to be law.

Personally, I'd ban insults - It's one thing to criticise somone's arguments, another to criticise that someone directly. I'm all for freedom of speech (which includes the freedom to make an arse of yourself), but there's nothing guaranteed to derail an interesting discussion more than the descent into name-calling and mudslinging. It's self-indulgent and, from the point-of-view of this observer, completely boring.

Ban was probably too strong a word - my preferred option would be (visible) editing, with perhaps a little note explaining who had edited it and (very briefly) why.

As you point out, this would involve quite active moderation and, given the number of posts here, quite a lot of work. Although I think there could be a focus on obvious insults, with posters able to report what they felt were more subtle digs along with an argument for editing. That way, moderators skimming through the comments could pick out the obvious cases and rely on posters to pick up anything that was missed.

Chris,

I can see that working.

For about five minutes.

All it takes is one person to go negative and then those it's aimed at seem to feel duty-bound to do the same.

I know it's pretty much a feature of any Internet forum, but it does seem to me that at least half of the posts on this site have more to do with the posters opinion of others than the topic under discussion.

How do you ban pseudonyms though? For all you know, "Matt Murrell" could be completely fictitious - same goes for any poster apparently using their real name.

I think we've already seen a tremendous improvement by eliminating anonymous posting. But active moderation is more an art than a simple application of rules. And no one is going to be satisfied ALL the time.

Solve sometimes posts stuff worth discussion and sometimes it's nothing but tin-foil hat, moonbat, conspiracy crap. But crap is apparently in the eye of the beholder. Unless it's a blatant violation of copywrite or completely insane, I usually let it go. Joe Franks took great offense to my editing his "draft speech." Maybe it's just me, but I just didn't find his references to specific sexual acts on Satan to have much relevance to the theme of OD as well as personally offensive to have to read.

But maybe others might not be offended--just bored. So offense too is in the eye of the beholder.

OK, maybe ban obvious pseudonyms like "Trolls R Us" and what have you. For some reason those who avoid flaming, trolling etc. also seem to avoid using "realistic pseudonyms" like Matt Murrell or Courtney Hamilton. In fact I found CH's blog through his oD posts and it's pretty interesting and well-written.

Moonbat conspiracy crap (if that's what it is!) at least has the advantage of being on-topic in some remote sense. I think personal abuse is the only real crime. I might also include vague unsubstantiated dismissals ("that's crap"), contradiction loops ("is / isn't / is / isn't") and so forth because these, like abuse really, are evasions. I think most "debate" on the oD forums is very closed and evasive, which is a pity. I think you can discourage this but I don't think you can ban much more than direct abuse.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how copyright could be an issue. If someone has published something on the web then presumably it's because they want people to see it and we would be giving it welcome publicity. Provided it is properly attributed then there should be no problem unless it is from a pay to view site.

I think the problem with posts that print articles in full is that they are generally too disparate in nature to spark a tidy debate. I think the poster should make their point and possibly provide references to any article which inspired or supports it. Brief extracts directly relevant to the point would be acceptable.

Posts which publish articles in full but do not state the point to be debated should be deleted.

Owly is right that reproduction of full copyrighted articles is almost certainly an infringement of copyright and I agree that we should add it to the moderator brief to delete these when we see them.

(Most oD articles are published under a Creative Commons license which makes their copying much simpler.)

The reality of the web is that people love to get quoted -- but not, I agree with Owly, wholesale lifted -- especially if there is linking and attribution.

One way I like to do this is by embedding a picture of the quote I want to make, with some of the other site's branding and a link through to the originating site, like this:

(I use http://www.scrnshots.com/ to do this easily from the desktop)

Tony

I think the rule should be this:

full articles (unless very explicitly public domain or creative commons licensed) should be POINTED TO.

A moderator may take the decision to write in the url, or could delete it.

Just a reminder on how to include links in forum posts in the next comment (had to do it with picture, otherwise the site interprets it as a url, of course ...)

Ok. Point accepted about copyright - though my point about long and rambling posts has the same outcome: zap them out or truncate them.

Coming back around to what the forums are for: Would it be it be fair enough to delete any postings which fail to generate discussions. Maybe this could be done after a period of, say, 5 or 10 days.

Tony,

You have no way of knowing for certain if an article is in the 'Public Domain', nor if an article is 'creative commons licensed' without a deal of work by the Moderators. (They don't have a clue about Copyright).

Basically it is being made more complex than it ought to be. A full article should simply be deleted - it is not the job of a Moderator to cut the article so it falls within 'Fair Dealing' provisions according to UK Copyright Law or to spend hours checking the original source for the copyright status. They are not 'Editors'. Whether you delete the Threads started in such a way is up to you, but I think I would. They will merely clutter the forums.

I'm very pissed off at the way Copyright has been abused on this site, and so I am pleased you are actually going to do something about it. This has been an issue for years as I use to point this out to Jessica etc. It is all a matter of integrity (the integrity and honesty of the site) and of literary manners.

Luckily for you Sir Ian Blair has left office today or I was going to make a complaint and 9 officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch would have raided the offices next week to search your hard drives and cart off all your paper clips. So don't say you haven't been warned.

What would be the point?

Isn't it quite instructive, also, to leave a trace of what doesn't ignite discussion?

My view has 25 topics Tony. When I look at Democracy and Power right now, 17 of those topics appear to have been put there for no other reason than to gain a wider audience - not to spark a discussion. It means that other topics get pushed out of sight.

I guess I meant it for completeness to say that a moderator _could_ legitimately not delete a cut & paste article. But I agree that time constraints would usually make it easier to just get rid of it.

I guess Solve is getting on the agenda for the next moderators meeting.

Tony

Personally, I think the "fair dealing" issues, while easier to define, is less important than the clutter issue and the relevance issue. The sad reality is that much of the time well over half the threads on the opening page of the forum are started by one person, and almost none of them generate discussion, pushing discussion threads into oblivion. And really, put yourself in the place of a person viewing the forum for the first time... would you want to stick around and talk a bit after seeing some of this stuff?

There must be some way to manage it fairly... possibly a limit on the number of threads one person can start in a given time frame?

Or maybe Roger could just post all his stuff as replies to one thread, which would protect his right to link to stuff he likes while making it easy for the rest of us to ignore it?

again , i think if the subjects of mr roger is going along with supporting owly or mike thought, it could not be censored. may be iam wrong, but i believe in that.

becasue also mike is one who can edit and block others .

I'm sensing some urgency from everyone in trying to find solution to the problem with Solve. We wouldnt want to rush through this now, would we? I think we need a couple more years to discuss it.

How about this - we create a new forum where moderators can move threads that they judge are not conducive to promoting what the oD forums are for.

This means that there is a sanciton less than deletion. If copyright is clearly infringed, then delete. If the moderator judges the post is egregiously not contributing, move it to the new forum. This is not a place of no return, and we can all go back and see if powers are being abused.

Any views? thoughts on the name of the new forum?

Tony

Gee thanks for the answer Tony. What a professional.

OK. Limbo has now been created.

Moderators have the power to send things to LImbo.

Let's try it and see if it works.

Thanks for the suggestion and discussion, Tony

tempest in a teapot perhaps?

keep swinging that axe Candace.

Way to go Matt...

Not sure if you're for or against Limbo, Candace.

just to repeat logic:

1. this is an experiment. we'll discuss at next moderators meeting and see if it is serving any purpose

2. deletion is a pretty big step - you are destroying someone's efforts, there is no recourse. the abuse threshold for using a big stick like deletion has to be pretty high.

3. maybe a softer stick - and the threat of one - will be useful. let's see.

4. does this show authority-figure-aversion? well ... this does get to the heart of this thread, what are the oD forums for? ... It seems to me that a public space for discussion needs to be ruled by legitimate authority. No authority and there is no recourse against abuse. Authoritarianism (which works fine on many -- especially non-political -- forums) will show bias. So the forums have the problem that democracy at large faces -- how to legitimate power. Demonstrating some aversion to authority per se seems to me to be an important part of legitimacy. If you can't question authority, the suspicion has to be that it is arbitrary. Transparency is an important tool in questioning, and Limbo is meant to offer some transparency over the decisions of those with formal power in the forums. Sometimes, behaviour is bad enough that authoritarian measures have to be taken. But sometimes decisions for the common good have to be taken that should offer recourse and review.

Tony

Thanks Tony!

I've moved a few fringe posts already.

Not sure what's going on with Candace's thread. It shows 45 new replies, but when you click on the thread it comes up "Page Not Found." Some kind of technical issue?

Sure I can go on knowing that somewhere a bot is having its way with my thread. No problem.

Both versions show the same results. I don't know how I got a different version but ok.. whatever.

I don't have a computer that I only use and I'm sure I couldn't be the only one who doesn't. I'm curious how your 'tracking system' helps you acquire reliable information on what your viewers want to read when you could be gathering information from people who could have no interest in visiting this site.

I think a code of conduct would be problematic.

I suggest to limit the number of pieces per week a person may post.

Has anyone here posted more than say 5 to 7 pieces per week with the intention of saying something? I don't believe so. I think we can put up with 5 - 7 pieces of hot air from Solve. Number 8 - 1000 would be deleted.

Solve would still have the chance to post pieces of any value, if he wants to. Nobody else would be restricted, or has anybody posted more pieces?

I'm pretty new here and I see some posts/concerns about the quantity of SPAM and/or trolls. Then hopping through a few of the topics, I see a bit of questionable content... items that I believe were posted only to link to a website they are promoting.

But what I don't see, is a button to Flag a post as potential SPAM. Is there such a thing? I'm on another forum where they have something like that and if some number (I don't know the number) of members complain about an item, then it is automatically deleted. I think that is a good idea, though you may want to only give that power to people who have been members for some length of time.

Mostly though I was trying to figure out how to flag a post that looks like SPAM for review.

I think I added a couple of modernists to your debate - a Soros and a progressive funder. Where are they then? But my main point still stands. Put it this way. David Marquand's important new book says there is a strand in British politics he calls "democratic republicanism". It puts its faith in the kinetic energy of individuals, it looks to democracy that is based on free argument and tested ideas. it is different from the other democracies, Whig, Tory and Collectivst, which are etatist in their different ways. The point is that while it is not a party pov or a narrow organised one, it is a direction. The other tendencies too would not deny that they believe in democracy and rights.