636 réponses à ce sujet

[Gravisanimi]

Any other thoughts on Leo's idea?

Sounds like the internet turned into a fascist communist government where everyone is "equal but not really".

 

The problem therein lies that you are trying to regulate a thing so large that you can't regulate it, like when Rome tried to control half the European continent, it just didn't work and they fell apart because they couldn't keep everyone togeather.

 

So you punish people for doing things on the internet, then who's to say some of those people don't "rebel" and make their own rules in their own part of the internet, free from the "tyrannical" rein.

 

Government only works if the massive majority wants it.

[Abraham_uk]

I'm just saying.

You don't make the weirdest threads, but you make some weird threads.

 

The thread wasn't initially about Leo's suggestion.

It was going to be about the video in the opening post, but people didn't have a great deal to say about it.

Then Leo comes along with a controversial idea that sparks a discussion.

I was thinking, okay, now we have a thread.

 

Ho, ho, ho Merry Christmas!

[Abraham_uk]

You know what. I miss how this forum was in the old days. This just clicked.

Not that it was better, but we were more focused on games, and movies, and such. It was a fun time, a youthful time. Political threads were laughed away.

 

But then people like the selfie brigade, and the Pseudo intellectuals, and alot of the other types of new people I won't mention showed up. You started seeing really stupid threads about dating, and politics, and all this other crap that ill suits a gaming forum popped up.

 

It sucks.

 

Thing is, "off topic" section can be about anything.

Literally anything.

 

The vast majority of the forums (i.e. everything outside of "Off Topic") is about games.

This is a gaming forum where 80% of the content is gaming related.

The other 20% is the easy to avoid off topic section.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Are you sure it was Proposition?

Maybe it was position, condition or situation.

[Abraham_uk]

Point taken Kaizoku Kaiserian

 

Does anyone have any other ideas?

 

For me I'm happy with forums having moderators.

Also sites such as Youtube, Facebook and Twitter have their own moderators.

 

I feel that this should be the job of social networks to moderate themselves rather than the government.

 

 

Internet police should be focused on tackling fraud, hacking, misuse of people's bank details, identity theft, terrorism etc.

As a matter of fact, that is what the Internet police do.

 

 

The internet police are stretched as it is.

If someone is being bullied on the internet, then perhaps we the citizens should be doing our bit.

Why is it always the police's responsibility to cover every facet of discipline?

[TheClonesLegacy]

Thing is, "off topic" section can be about anything.
Literally anything.

The vast majority of the forums (i.e. everything outside of "Off Topic") is about games.
This is a gaming forum where 80% of the content is gaming related.
The other 20% is the easy to avoid off topic section.

It's not hard to yearn for the old days when all these body builders just sprouted up seemingly from nowhere.
All of whom make pretty much the same thread.

[Abraham_uk]

This wouldn't work.

 

There is just too much data exchanged in this social networks. They do however, have smart automated system to do the moderation. In other cases they just rely on the community to moderate themselves through the report button.

 

This can also be gamed as a system

 

 

I am not proposing anything.

I am literally stating something that already exists.

These forums have moderators. I think they do a good job here on the Bioware Forums.

 

 

 

Facebook and YouTube has methods (as you have pointed out) where you can report people.

They work. Not 100% of the time and yes they do get abused, but these tools are available.

 

Facebook and YouTube do to the best of my knowledge have moderators. They just don't show their faces. Unlike the Bioware Forums, you can't have a nice little chat with them and discuss the weather.

 

There is no proposition coming from me.

Which is great since I have nothing to defend.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Yes, I'm serious. I was thinking more of a qualification test to evaluate your personality, Then up you go, Do as you please. Same rules as before, Or even less restrictions as the conversations would always be civil and constructive.

 

This option already exists. Sadly, no matter how many times I suggest it, the response usually seems to be some variation of, 'But I don't wanna do that, I wanna change the rules for the open forums."

 

You can create a group, and then restrict access to people whose "personalities" are compatible with the tone and conversations you're looking to have. They ebb and flow in popularity, generally, but it's entirely possible to keep lively conversations going in them, without the need for heavy moderation.

[TheClonesLegacy]

Yes, And that's my idea, Creative chaos. To loosen up most if not all restrictions after the test. But once I make sure that every member of the community is contributing to the greater good.

Ah. So you ARE saying you'd be the one in charge.

Why you? What earns you that right?
If someone was to run this test, they should be impartial. You're as biased as the rest of us.

Or are you scared you'd fail your own test? So this is a way to cheat the system you made.

[TheClonesLegacy]

I'm pretty sure OWA have already asked me this question, And no, I'm no different, I'd take the test just like any of you. And just for your information, I'm not afraid of anything. And sure, The most qualified individual should lead the process. And as creator, I'm basically the most qualified person to be a supervisor. But only after i pass the harshest test of them all to qualify as a supervisor.

I didn't vote for you.
Nor would I. It's as Gravy says. This kinda stuff only works if the majority wants it, not because a test YOU designed says you can rule the Internet. Otherwise they'll reject you and start their own system.
Remember how I brought up the Russian Revolution?
Hell the French Revolution too.

[TheClonesLegacy]

So now you're segregating people? Your word choices are terrible.

It may not be a perfect system, majority. But it's better than some self righteous, self appointed, maniac deciding for people.

[Abraham_uk]

I apologize if i derailed this thread, Not my intention.

 

I made the thread about your idea.

It's okay.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Ah. So you ARE saying you'd be the one in charge.

Why you? What earns you that right?
If someone was to run this test, they should be impartial. You're as biased as the rest of us.

Or are you scared you'd fail your own test? So this is a way to cheat the system you made.

 

Well, at the end of the day, someone always has to be in charge. The groups are fundamentally designed that way.

 

From there, group leaders can add moderators, with powers that can be adjusted. In fact, there can be several tiers of membership, so some moderators could alter the group's CP, while others may only be able to invite members, or edit/delete posts and lock threads.

 

Of course, no one says that anyone has to join, if they're unhappy with the leadership, or if they don't trust the people in charge.

 

The biggest downside is that there have been some fairly severe restrictions placed on groups, along with the ever-present threat of deletion, should one or more of the moderators disagree with the conversations being posted. However, in my experience, this threat has diminished in recent months, and receded to the point that groups have some (though nowhere near the appropriate former level) of freedom and autonomy to discuss what they wish.

[TheClonesLegacy]

Yeah, unreasonable.
I'm done with this Leo. You just keep digging that hole. Must be halfway to China at this point.

I'm gonna enjoy Desolation of Smaug.