The Cellar - View Single Post - Is it better to ban someone from a message board..

Undertoad · 04-11-2006, 03:42 PM

From 1990-1999 I think we banned like one person. The system worked well at the time because it took a little more effort to get on and participate.

In recent times the number has jumped to like 50 bans in the last six months.

Did I mention that 48 of those were spammers? Are you applying your thinking to them too? Because, consider:

- Any community on the net that's worthwhile, is worthwhile to spam
- Any community worthwhile to spam and not moderated, will be ruined by spam

AND,

- Any community on the net that's worthwhile, is worthwhile to attention whores
- Any community worthwhile to attention whores and not moderated, will be ruined by attention whores

Everyone hates moderation, but a community on the net can't survive in the long term without it. Also,

- If one applies *any* rules, one is seen as the "final arbiter" and it then becomes a responsibility to apply *enough* rules, consistently and fairly, for the community to survive and for users to understand what it's about.
- No *automated* or *user-based* system of moderation yet developed is more effective than a interested, enlightened, light-handed moderator or set of moderators, combined with a strong community.

Slashdot, there's your user-based moderation at work. Is it so great? Kuro5hin, on which every comment was rated, turned into a clique of enormous proportions and eventually partly failed due to personal attacks on the owner. (Have I been personally attacked or threatened due to the Cellar: yes)

There's also a paradox:
- Any community worthwhile will take resources
- Resources are a cost to someone
- Anything that's a cost to someone requires them to see a benefit
- Benefits are usually editorial or commercial
- Editorial/commercial bents make shitty communities

On the Cellar, most of the costs are handled by donations and I accept the headaches of actually running it because it's a cool hobby to have. Plus I'm fascinated by the online society, and have studied it in detail all this time.

The paradox is why there are precious few completely unmanaged communities like AG, which I'm guessing only lives out of the goodness of some anonymous sysadmin's heart. In the long run, someone has to pay for the new disk and someone has to take the time to install it. Why should they?

04-11-2006, 03:42 PM	#7
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	From 1990-1999 I think we banned like one person. The system worked well at the time because it took a little more effort to get on and participate. In recent times the number has jumped to like 50 bans in the last six months. Did I mention that 48 of those were spammers? Are you applying your thinking to them too? Because, consider: - Any community on the net that's worthwhile, is worthwhile to spam - Any community worthwhile to spam and not moderated, will be ruined by spam AND, - Any community on the net that's worthwhile, is worthwhile to attention whores - Any community worthwhile to attention whores and not moderated, will be ruined by attention whores Everyone hates moderation, but a community on the net can't survive in the long term without it. Also, - If one applies any rules, one is seen as the "final arbiter" and it then becomes a responsibility to apply enough rules, consistently and fairly, for the community to survive and for users to understand what it's about. - No automated or user-based system of moderation yet developed is more effective than a interested, enlightened, light-handed moderator or set of moderators, combined with a strong community. Slashdot, there's your user-based moderation at work. Is it so great? Kuro5hin, on which every comment was rated, turned into a clique of enormous proportions and eventually partly failed due to personal attacks on the owner. (Have I been personally attacked or threatened due to the Cellar: yes) There's also a paradox: - Any community worthwhile will take resources - Resources are a cost to someone - Anything that's a cost to someone requires them to see a benefit - Benefits are usually editorial or commercial - Editorial/commercial bents make shitty communities On the Cellar, most of the costs are handled by donations and I accept the headaches of actually running it because it's a cool hobby to have. Plus I'm fascinated by the online society, and have studied it in detail all this time. The paradox is why there are precious few completely unmanaged communities like AG, which I'm guessing only lives out of the goodness of some anonymous sysadmin's heart. In the long run, someone has to pay for the new disk and someone has to take the time to install it. Why should they?