Democratic Forum

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 June 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1275687653' post='2123805']
I'd be worried that it would turn into 4chan's /b/ area, actually.
[/quote]
You Canadians talk funny. I have no idea what this means.

[Resurrexi]

If there were a constitution governing the forum and the kind of content that was acceptable, that kind of thing would not be a problem.

[Hilde]

What if someone didn't follow the constitution?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Hilde' date='04 June 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1275688090' post='2123809']
What if someone didn't follow the constitution?
[/quote]

That person would be warned and/or banned.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I don't know that it would be much different content wise. Assuming the exact same group of phatmassers and an effective democratic structure anyway. Presumably the people of phatmass would still be talking about the same kind of stuff in a similar way. I see no reason to suppose that switching from a permanent, elitist moderator team to something impermanent and based on decentralized power would change the character of phatmassers in some dramatic way. In some egalitarian models I see reason to believe that content moderation would be considerably more effective.

Nihil,

I'm pretty sure 4chan has the elitist moderator approach and not a democratic approach. I would guess that the factor there is fundamentally the particular culture of that place, followed probably by user anonymity, and perhaps lack of enforcement. There is no reason to suppose that a democratic forum would necessitate, or in any way encourage, any of these things.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here's one possible scenario out of many that I think would be worth trying.

At any given time there is a pseudo-random chance, the non-random factor being the needs of the board at the time, that a currently signed in member will be given the moderator torch, as it were. The goal being an active moderator on duty as much as possible. The vast majority of the time a member with the moderator torch will simply go about their business and will not exercise those powers and responsibilities in any way. Any moderator action must be well justified and have a proper precedent. If someone posts spam, porn, or something else clearly considered offensive or unacceptable by the community that user will be justified in taking action. For 'grey area' offenses the community will discuss and vote on the necessity of moderator action similar to what is the case now when a user reports a post, except that everything is 100% open to all (in this case it is in fact the community at large making the decision and the person with the torch is simply implementing that decision). All members are perfectly free to opt out of moderator duties if they so desire. But the real key is that the community can disqualify a member from moderator duties if they have abused that power in some way. I also imagine the specifics of the software to be designed in a way that will discourage abuse--secondary discussion.

In effect, the bestowal of moderator responsibility and power is voluntary, kept fair based on the element of random chance, is very much temporary, and is balanced by the community in the sense that eligibility for this responsibility can be lost by irresponsible action. Further, the community might define prerequisites for the eligibility of new members; perhaps a minimum number of posts.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='04 June 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1275688439' post='2123812']
Nihil,

I'm pretty sure 4chan has the elitist moderator approach and not a democratic approach. I would guess that the factor there is fundamentally the particular culture of that place, followed probably by user anonymity, and perhaps lack of enforcement. There is no reason to suppose that a democratic forum would necessitate, or in any way encourage, any of these things.
[/quote]

this is basically right. the mods there have the power to ban people for any reason at all, including no reason at all. they do have laws against certain things, and try to police them, but mods can only remove evidence and punish crimes, not prevent them. by sheer volume and the aforementioned anonymous culture, the enforcement is considered ineffective.

case in point, Phatmass has strict laws against posting pornography, but on at least 10-15 occassions there has been threads full of it, that exist until mods can take them down.
if PM was more widely known this would happen more often.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 June 2010 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1275690636' post='2123823']
case in point, Phatmass has strict laws against posting pornography, but on at least 10-15 occassions there has been threads full of it, that exist until mods can take them down.
if PM was more widely known this would happen more often.[/quote]
Fascinating. I do speculate that some sort of allotment approach to moderation (as opposed to a fixed team) would generally be more effective at thwarting such spams promptly (much greater chance of there being a mod 'on duty' at any given time). Also things like requiring registration, IP-based banning, flood control, etc., would make a big flood of spam more difficult. It sounds like that chan site is basically asking for it.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 June 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1275687653' post='2123805']
I'd be worried that it would turn into 4chan's /b/ area, actually.
[/quote]
Your repeated promotion of this pop secularism site is scandalous to Catholics on this site

I recommend you cease and desist your subversive attempts to ensnare poor souls

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='04 June 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1275692095' post='2123829']
Your repeated promotion of this pop secularism site is scandalous to Catholics on this site

I recommend you cease and desist your subversive attempts to ensnare poor souls
[/quote]
amen.

[jeffpugh]

This is excellent. So, would mod elections be once a month? Once a week? what?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='04 June 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1275692578' post='2123834']
This is excellent. So, would mod elections be once a month? Once a week? what?
[/quote]
Up to the people. But I tend to favor the allotment approach for an initial experiment. No elections, everyone can be called upon to temporarily assume moderator responsibilities, as needed, unless a member has been disqualified due to blatantly irresponsible or inappropriate behavior. The system will have an algorithm for making this happen automatically. Check out my previous posts for more detail.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='04 June 2010 - 06:57 PM' timestamp='1275692278' post='2123832']
amen.
[/quote]
and here all along I thought that [i][b]I[/b][/i] was a bad person

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='04 June 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1275694083' post='2123845']
and here all along I thought that [i][b]I[/b][/i] was a bad person
[/quote]


The beard has corrupted him. Just keep on shaving and you'll be okay friend.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='04 June 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1275692578' post='2123834']
This is excellent. So, would mod elections be once a month? Once a week? what?
[/quote]

I actually like the idea of mod elections, but I also like the idea of random allotment. I think it would be cool to try both options in order to find which works better.