Let's evolve, shall we?

[AlexV]

But why make the selection for people? Why not let them self select. I forgot all about user groups.

If each forum (and new posts) simply gave you two lists :
- View posts from usergroups
- View replies to post from usergroups
In which you could select from say Developers, Senior Members, white list and everyone ... then everyone could self select who they wanted to converse with and who they consider noise.

If Developers only want to talk to developers, fine they can have a forum which does that ... if I don't then the exact same forum can do that too without affecting aforementioned developer.

I don't think I said we'd go with the "we'll choose for you solution", I'm not strongly pro that either. What we will do is ensure that there's a safe haven for such discussion (Shifty's basic idea is good, the implementation however will be different), which ATM doesn't really exist. The bit about devs only talking to devs, engineers only to engineers does not appeal to me, because as i mentioned upstream, a lot of people are here incognito.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why not simply have per user black/whitelists, and allow developers to get a special flag which adds them to a developer whitelist which new users can subscribe to? Developers who don't want to interact with the plebs subscribe to the developer whitelist and filter out all posts from people not on their whitelist, and replies to posts from people not on their whitelist.

I hadn't considered a whitelist option, and that has merits, but discussions can still get damned muddled. I used to use ignore lists but that doesn't remove a poster from the discussion, only their posts. You see them get quoted, and you see unquoted replies that don't then have any content. As often as not I'd open hidden posts just to see what was being discussed. In your proposed model, you could see 'developers' (all valued posters, not necessarily insiders) replying to posts you haven't read, and not know what is going on. And devs not ignoring plebs can get sidelined from the useful discussion. And it's all very well saying people can self moderate, but that's not human nature. Every dick who trolls a console thread generates counter-productive responses. You never get the forum populace at large just ignoring them, and rarely do you get folk who pull out of a discussion because they see it's off-topic or the like. Lots and lots of moderation edits help keep topics alive.

I don't think creating a stage solely for developers only will be successful or popular ... and actually moving threads there with content created by people who can't even post there, well I already expressed my opinion.

Hang on, I never said solely for developers! I said for everyone who meets the...quality standard. Every single member of the forums would be able to gain posting rights as long as some suitable criteria are met. But it would mean those plebbiest of plebs with nothing valid to contribute, who everyone would ignore from choice (a system we already have in place with banning, a form of moderator censureship that decides everyone should be refused access to these people's opinions because they are meritless) won't get to mess up the level of debate.

Again, everyone reads all posts. Everyone can apply or be invited or whatever to post. All those on the exclusive board are held to a higher standard that means quicker removal of those who generate noise without generating more work than the mods can be expected to handle. The serious discussion is given room to grow, fed by knowledgeable folk and inquisitive minds with a common curiosity and honest desire for open, intelligent discussion. And the public boards accomodate the layman without the technical basis to discuss in the 'professional' board but who can read those ideas and explore them within their own level of experience, such as in discussing games implementing techniques talked about on the pro board where they can say, "this looks amazing! DICE are coding Godz!!!" and "them texturz are lame!" and it being a welcome opinion rather than unwanted noise in a serious discussion.

I'm not saying the "pro forum" is the best way, but it's a way I know could be done and illustrates the idea. I'm enthusiastic to learn what new system Alex has in mind!

 

[MfA]

I hadn't considered a whitelist option, and that has merits, but discussions can still get damned muddled. I used to use ignore lists but that doesn't remove a poster from the discussion, only their posts. You see them get quoted, and you see unquoted replies that don't then have any content. As often as not I'd open hidden posts just to see what was being discussed. In your proposed model, you could see 'developers' (all valued posters, not necessarily insiders) replying to posts you haven't read, and not know what is going on.!

Most replies use quotations, and for those replies to people you don't want to hear can be filtered out as well in theory. As for replies which don't use proper quotations, meh ... nothing's perfect.

 

[rpg.314]

Content suggestion: How about having interviews with industry people. The people from B3D will be able to ask questions far better suited to B3D audience, and probably evoke much more interesting answers as well.

Case in point: The kill-api thread currently going on. I'd like to see much better stuff come out than what was said.

 

[Farid]

Case in point: The kill-api thread currently going on. I'd like to see much better stuff come out than what was said.

An article on that particular topic is already in the works.

 

[Squilliam]

I hadn't considered a whitelist option, and that has merits, but discussions can still get damned muddled.

What about a black list option instead? Since you don't know who will be good and who will be bad ahead of time, why not instead wait for people to mess up and then ban then from posting in a particular forum such as Console technology? Just have it like RSPC where people have to read particular rules and check a box saying that they will abide by the terms of discussion. This way you don't have to give out a forum wide infraction for something which is generally tolerated elsewhere, instead you can focus on the infraction in the context of the tighter rules within the one or few particular forum areas.

 

[rpg.314]

An article on that particular topic is already in the works.

Let's hope that we'll get to read it soon.

 

[MfA]

What about a black list option instead? Since you don't know who will be good and who will be bad ahead of time, why not instead wait for people to mess up and then ban then from posting in a particular forum such as Console technology? Just have it like RSPC where people have to read particular rules and check a box saying that they will abide by the terms of discussion. This way you don't have to give out a forum wide infraction for something which is generally tolerated elsewhere, instead you can focus on the infraction in the context of the tighter rules within the one or few particular forum areas.

The problem is the stigma and the fact that punishing naivety is a bad way to grow a community ... everyone starts at the bottom and kicking people while they are blindly climbing up is not a good motivator.

Just give everyone with a post count over X posts senior member status, give developers who ask for it (game developers, but also tool developers and demo developers) membership of a developer group, and then let all the readers filter based on post/original-post group membership, as well as a personal ignore and whitelist ... that way no one gets stigmatized.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

What about a black list option instead? Since you don't know who will be good and who will be bad ahead of time, why not instead wait for people to mess up and then ban then from posting in a particular forum such as Console technology? Just have it like RSPC where people have to read particular rules and check a box saying that they will abide by the terms of discussion. This way you don't have to give out a forum wide infraction for something which is generally tolerated elsewhere, instead you can focus on the infraction in the context of the tighter rules within the one or few particular forum areas.

I'd prefer a whitelist based on recent forum history (even first time bad posters can become good posters over time) and prehaps credentials that may be provided confidentially during sign up.

Otherwise it could start out a mess from day one with constant occasional flareups as you get new members on the forum who may be disruptive (intentially or unintentionally) but haven't had time to be blacklisted yet. And once a thread is derailed, it can be difficult at times to get it back on track.

Granted, even a whitelist won't prevent all thread derailments since sometimes a person is just having a bad day, but it should keep the noise to a minimum better than a blacklist I think. And I'm saying this assuming I wouldn't make the cut for the whitelist. I'm far too opinionated on some things.

Regards,
SB

 

[Squilliam]

The problem is the stigma and the fact that punishing naivety is a bad way to grow a community ... everyone starts at the bottom and kicking people while they are blindly climbing up is not a good motivator.

Just give everyone with a post count over X posts senior member status, give developers who ask for it (game developers, but also tool developers and demo developers) membership of a developer group, and then let all the readers filter based on post/original-post group membership, as well as a personal ignore and whitelist ... that way no one gets stigmatized.

The problem with starting with X post count is quite often some of the really good contributors don't post very frequently, often having under 50 posts and they couldn't get in. The issue still remains however about how to evolve the forum to suit the needs of the pro contributers.

I'd prefer a whitelist based on recent forum history (even first time bad posters can become good posters over time) and prehaps credentials that may be provided confidentially during sign up.

And I'm saying this assuming I wouldn't make the cut for the whitelist. I'm far too opinionated on some things.

Regards,
SB

You're a naughty buddha! So based on whether you've recieved an infraction in the past X number of months/weeks etc and how many infractions recieved? It would require the mods to be more rigid in enforcing certain rules especially in relation to the topicality of the discussion in relation to the post made. It would effectively put the burden back on the mod team and is that the right way to go?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Indeed, who manages whitelists or blacklists?

 

[MfA]

The problem with starting with X post count is quite often some of the really good contributors don't post very frequently

I didn't say start with X posts, I said let people filter on everyone who has had X posts.

Those contributors who have less posts can step it up and get their post count up, sign up as a developer, or only talk to those of us who read everything any way (as I said, I read slashdot at 0 as well).

 

[Squilliam]

I didn't say start with X posts, I said let people filter on everyone who has had X posts.

Those contributors who have less posts can step it up and get their post count up, sign up as a developer, or only talk to those of us who read everything any way (as I said, I read slashdot at 0 as well).

Very well.

It might be worth a trial to see how it goes as it is effectively seamless to all users no matter how the individuals select their personal settings.

 

[Snyder]

I didn't say start with X posts, I said let people filter on everyone who has had X posts.

Those contributors who have less posts can step it up and get their post count up, sign up as a developer, or only talk to those of us who read everything any way (as I said, I read slashdot at 0 as well).

Hm. I'm of the opinion that an a priori filtering of people based on their postcount has the danger of being too disruptive, even with the possibility of developer accounts and such.
I'm mostly a lurker here (as my regdate to postcount ratio shows), and what has astonished me here time and again was the fact how interesting conversations would start here, out of nothing, and often with newcomers joining in.
On one hand those could be professionals with valuable information/insights/knowledge which were directed to a certain thread (possibly about a topic they were involved in), but on the other could be laymen with relativly simple questions/statements that themselves still spawned interesting stuff by knowledgable regulars. Especially the latter is something I _never_ have seen anywhere else in this intensity, and I think it would suffer.

The philosopher's stone would be a system that presents a low barrier of entry but a high barrier for generating noise, while keeping the need of moderation at a bearable level.

Since slashdot was mentioned - we already had a rating system once. I know it didn't last, but IIRC one problem was that it was too much focused on positive reinforcement (i.e. getting high-starred posts).
What about a system that allows for downrating noise-generating posts (restricted to regulars of course, maybe needing some checks to prevent misuse) without too much focussing on '+5 Insightful' (which I don't think is needed or even beneficial in this environment here), combined with the ability to filter by this rank.
In addition, one could install some sort of automatism about people whose posts get downranked often enough.

Another partially related idea: If restricted forums were to be established, even newcomers could post there (to allow for a low barrier of participation), but only a miniscule amount of posts (2? 3?). Those posts would then have to be deemed worth enough by the regulars to allow the newcomer to continue to participate (again possibly via ranking/voting, and again, without focus on positive reinforcement other then the "entrance pass").

Those are just some ideas, but even while the Console Forums do have their problems, I still don't know any other forum (as a whole) that manages to keep that high a level of signal/noise and in-depth discussion while still having a high accessibility to newcomers - both experts and laymen. And I'm afraid that significantly raising the barrier of entry could destroy that.

</insomniafuelledrant>

 

[Arwin]

+5 insightful.

What you propose in terms of negative feedback basically exists in a less refined form already in the report post button.

In the end, the quality of discussion here depends for a large part on what standards we set ourselves as a community. Moderators are vital in upholding that standard currently. Good posting guidelines that mods or posters can refer to are equally valuable. Should we ever implement a feedback system again, we should probably relate it to such guidelines rather than correlate it to any subjective appreciation by posters or mods alike.

 

[Rodéric]

Vote posts for quality, show only posts with less than n votes or more than threshold quality ?
Restrict people having the right to vote to mods & devs, then extend it to people having an average quality level above a threshold ?

If we want self balancing, we need community support, the other way is full moderation which takes a lot of time and efforts...

 

[Squilliam]

Why not have people vote up the good posts and give others the ability to click 'view all high ranked posts' to weed out the noise? Simple and effective, and completely opt in for those who want to use it whilst being transparent to those who don't.

 

[Arwin]

What I am saying is that you need objective criteria for what quality is, beyond 'I agree with this post', otherwise it won't work ( as we know from experience).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's the problem with any public voting scheme - cartels of friends who get together to vote up/down according to their objectives, rather than voting individual posts on individual appreciation or disapproval.

There's something to be said about Rodéric's suggestion of starting with a small pool of votable members who would naturally extend voting rights to those who contribute the most. Members could just post and slowly accrue merit until they prove they are on the same wavelength.

That would need a very stable voting contribution though. Imagine a poster who varies wildly, posting good material sometimes and acting a prat at other times. If they get thumbs up for their good posts, but not thumbs down for bad posts, they'd get voting rights as an individual who's not up to standard, and they'd be generating noise.

If the voting was taken seriously, it could be a good way to extend community moderation. Let's say voting rights only go to 5% of the community, or 20% of the more active posters. You could fairly say that if a post gets 5 down votes, it can be removed from open discussion. This would silence trolls without needing a mod to get involved, and would give the community a better course of action than counter-trolling. Instead of posting insults or continuing a thread derailment, the community could cause a change in the thread to correct it.

That system sounds good on paper. It would succeed or fail on how well it was used/abused.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why not have people vote up the good posts and give others the ability to click 'view all high ranked posts' to weed out the noise? Simple and effective, and completely opt in for those who want to use it whilst being transparent to those who don't.

You couldn't do just a high-rank filter, as the majority of posts are going to be neutral. You'd need a low-band filter to remove low-ranked posts from discussion. The higher voting value would be towards a poster gaining voting rights themselves.

If such a system were to be started, we could decide who gets initial posting rights by an election within the forum. People could nominate who they feel are worthy contributors (devs get a free pass) and we'd pick from those. We could also extend the notion to try an incorporate a higher standards category of poster. Instead of dividing the board into professional boards with rigid guidelines and no nonsense, zero tolerance, and the more open public boards, we could divide members into public and 'professional'. Forum moderation would become more of a community thing with the voters getting the majority say in what gets discussed and what doesn't, with the moderators just having to 'police' the voters to ensure no bad apples get through and maintain running of the board. Or as an overview...

Member types in ascending order:
Rejected member - member who has received sufficient negative rep to be banned or lose posting rights or somesuch. Perhaps negative points could lead to time off, and be partially reset on return to gave second chances?
Member - right to post. Can see all posts and filter out negative posts. Held to standard forum rules, somewhat subjective. Crap posts will be oppressed by community voting.
Voter - gained when posts are sufficiently highly rated. Right to vote on posts. Has to follow a zero-tolerance ruleset. Perhaps any breech of ettiquette leads to immediate voting right removal?
Mods - maintain forum structure and thread organisation, keep out spammers and obvious trolls, and check voting for fairness in reported cases where a member feels hard done by. I'm a little worried noobs could be oppressively downvoted for not understanding things, rather than being morons. I don't think that'd be a huge problem, but it'd be something to watch out for.

This system would fit into the existing board with no changes to current operation. It'd just provide a filtering option that's based on the intelligence of the users and a building up of a core representation of the types of the users representing the stndards the community wants. With a little bit of tweaking for various point thresholds to decide what count as suitable measures, it should work.

I like it.

Edit: I'll add that reputation should be invisible. There shouldn't be any scores associated to posters or viewable on profiles. It should be transparent within the system, that people just carry on as normal, wanting to elevate their posting standard if they want voting rights. There should be a log of voting for the admin to see if there's any abuse, which shouldn't happen as the people with voting rights should only have got them on account of deserving them meaning they shouldn't be the osrt of person who'll abuse the positiono