IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New This I know.
I also know that there are 2 main offenders. And they are repeat offenders. They also seem to have made their point that they will never follow those guidelines.

So the options are, edit titles, delete pots (harder) and ban the users. I don't think anyone supports banning users except in extreme circumstances.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Possibility: auto-munging of title on insert
...Before it's even stored in the database. Something benign like fuck->fsck where you can still get the meaning, but following the guidelines.

Yes, that gets into territory that is a bit hazy for our group, but given that people cannot voluntarily follow the rules, I don't see something like this as too Draconian.
-YendorMike

[link|http://www.hope-ride.org/|http://www.hope-ride.org/]
New Funky monkey dancing!!!
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Worse than that.
Not that they >can't< follow the rules...they openly state that they can do whatever they want...that, for them, the rules do not apply.

On most administered forums...they would have already been banned.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New That... should be
Very self evident we are not one of the "most" forums then.

We have typically been a self-censured type/style of forum and that I believe it should stay.
b4k4^2
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!]  
[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops apps for Linux by 2004]
Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at checkpoints.
New Moral-LRPD: I'm very sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue
with you unless you've paid.
New The code is there
the Nadsat filter can be used in the subject line, but modified only for swear words. Good idea.


"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
New This I could live with... with a twist... (new thread)
Created as new thread #94542 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=94542|This I could live with... with a twist...]
b4k4^2
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!]  
[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops apps for Linux by 2004]
Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at checkpoints.
New Banning? No. Never.
I may tease about it... but will never.

I am sure Scott feels the same way. Karsten though I can't say.
b4k4^2
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!]  
[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops apps for Linux by 2004]
Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at checkpoints.
New Re: Banning? No. Never.
I may tease about it... but will never.


I am sure Scott feels the same way. Karsten though I can't say.


So does that mean Scott, you and Karsten are all sysops or moderators here? Or are you called Admins?

As someone who has been banned (for the first time in my life) from a Yahoo group for simply confronting the moderator about lying about me, I can honestly say I'm glad that you wouldn't jump in haste to ban someone. Not only was I banned because of this female moderator, but I also wasn't even told about it and just discovered it the hard way.

I don't know if banning is a good practice or a bad one, but I believe that if it is done it should at least be done with consideration as in the person should be informed that they are being banned and why. (shaking head).

The moderator who allowed this to happen has even admitted it to other people that it was all the female mod's doing, but still won't admit it in public or to the rest of the group, many who are still my friends, so ah well.. it's a mess I don't need to drag here, I just want you to understand my position on banning, since it came up. :)

Nightowl >8#

P.S. For the record, if I EVER do anything wrong here, I want the Admins to come tell me, I can handle that ok? Please don't ever think you'll upset me or hurt my feelings, I'd rather know the truth and correct the problem, then find out later someone never told me ok?

"Only dead fish swim with the stream."
Linda Ellerbee
New Peter also...
I am the machine and bandwidth primary proprietor/owner, Scott admins *Z*, Karsten admins *twiki* and Peter admins the jabber server on iwethey.org.

That's the FYI.
b4k4^2
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!]  
[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops apps for Linux by 2004]
Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at checkpoints.
New We've been through those fires before.
In a previous incarnation, IWETHEY had a poster who ... ahh, lets say he got offended easily. Once that point had been reached, it was always very difficult to make him see reason. Pleas to ignore him were not heeded by all, sad to say, which lessened the problem but of course didn't quite solve it. After repeated warnings, a failed experiment with deleting one of his more incendiary posts, he was banned temporarily (i.e. for 1 week). We made sure he was informed.

It was a move of last resort. Really! It took some agonising. None of us wanted to do it just to be rid of him.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
 
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

New Re: We've been through those fires before.
In a previous incarnation, IWETHEY had a poster who ... ahh, lets say he got offended easily. Once that point had been reached, it was always very difficult to make him see reason. Pleas to ignore him were not heeded by all, sad to say, which lessened the problem but of course didn't quite solve it. After repeated warnings, a failed experiment with deleting one of his more incendiary posts, he was banned temporarily (i.e. for 1 week). We made sure he was informed.


It was a move of last resort. Really! It took some agonising. None of us wanted to do it just to be rid of him.


Well, I applaud that you at least informed him about it, because like I said, I was not informed. I simply attempted to access the group and learned it failed, with both my main and backup IDs. I feel it was handled very poorly and irresponsibly, because the person should be informed.

And I understand how you feel about agonizing over it. I think I would try anything before ever considering banning someone, so I relate.

Nightowl >8#







"Only dead fish swim with the stream."
Linda Ellerbee
New Re: Banning? No. Never.

My position on the topic is this: any organization utlimately either does, or does not, have the ability to allow or disallow members. Exercise of this prerogative should be an extereme measure, but it should be allowed. It's expressed in a number of ways. Exile, excommunication, banishment, firing, etc. In an electronic forum, it's roughly the ultimate (and very coarse) filtering technique. I believe that lacking this power is ultimately fatal to any community -- it will either dissolve in chaos or be absorbed into some larger community, likely with quite different core beliefs and goals.

\r\n\r\n

In an electronic medium there's the added issue that enforcement of such actions is at best problematic. The main problems being that identifying credentials are limited (IP addresses, and a general gist of "style" in posting format being the main ones). Scott takes a largely opposing view to mine, on both technical and ethical grounds. OTOH, Scott has actively banned two users directly (Bryce, for posting a bullet-riddled, blood-dripping image of Scott, and Michel, who simply couldn't participate in a non-inflammetory manner with the group). Spammers and drive-by trolls are also banned from zIWT.

\r\n\r\n

I've disabled Norm's access to TWikIWeThey after he repeatedly posted essentially junk content, and under multiple identities. Also after he'd been asked and warned repeatedly not to do same. Cleaning up after his repeated tantrums has taken more time than any other activity on the site, including migrating it from the old (naga) server to new (knight) one. This is uncompensated time which is restricted to minutes per day during the week, and possible an hour or so on a weekend, stolen from other activities. I'm very jealous of any wasted time, and take a dim view to those who take it from me.

\r\n\r\n

Among its other faults, zIWE largely lacks any filtering or ranking mechanisms other than those derived from social and informal methods (eg: "nice post" or "please don't do that"). There's a long-standing issue in electronic (and other public forums) that high-value content is greatly less prevalent than low-value content. There are other issues: people don't agree on what is or isn't high-value, random content can provoke interesting responses, and people react negatively to being censored. However, [link|http://www.inftech.ru/comedy/murphy/mur00637.htm|Kitman's Law] holds, and ultimately leads to flight of clue. Balancing this is difficult.

\r\n\r\n

I've designed a comment-moderation scheme which works to some extent at [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org/|Kuro5hin], a discussion site.

--\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
   Keep software free.     Oppose the CBDTPA.     Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
New Cholmondeley's Annular Grillage Constant
[as ref'd. in The Turbo Encabulator in Industry]

~ not much of the above applies for 'sufficiently small group size'.

But probably ranking / filtering Must occur at larger populations.
This introduces the Group Mind / the impossibility of defining significant / the likelihood of the usual:

A small minority of folks interested in such things as Organizing + Controlling Authority shall begin to invent limits, across many scales. And all for the most Logical of deductions. Not to say reasoning.



Or, since Growth ==> Cancer
If we grow large enough here, we may have to destroy the org and start over ;-)



Ashton

Groucho (and Feynman) got it
New Re: Banning? No. Never.

I've disabled Norm's access to TWikIWeThey after he repeatedly posted essentially junk content, and under multiple identities. Also after he'd been asked and warned repeatedly not to do same. Cleaning up after his repeated tantrums has taken more time than any other activity on the site, including migrating it from the old (naga) server to new (knight) one. This is uncompensated time which is restricted to minutes per day during the week, and possible an hour or so on a weekend, stolen from other activities. I'm very jealous of any wasted time, and take a dim view to those who take it from me.



Well, I relate to that, although there are many less extreme measures other than banning, as well. When Norman was being strange on my group, for example, I simply blocked his alternate's ability to post and then put his main one on moderate. I never threw him out or banned him.

I don't know if those capabilities exist on here or not, but they are sometimes more effective than a simple banning, because you can only ban the one ID and unless you catch the others, what prevents them from rejoining? Anyway, just another option.

Among its other faults, zIWE largely lacks any filtering or ranking mechanisms other than those derived from social and informal methods (eg: "nice post" or "please don't do that"). There's a long-standing issue in electronic (and other public forums) that high-value content is greatly less prevalent than low-value content. There are other issues: people don't agree on what is or isn't high-value, random content can provoke interesting responses, and people react negatively to being censored. However, [link|http://www.inftech.ru/comedy/murphy/mur00637.htm|Kitman's Law] holds, and ultimately leads to flight of clue. Balancing this is difficult.



I don't quite get the concept of the long standing issue of high-value content and low value content and it's prevalence... or random content... but maybe I'm just not getting it in the right context?

Nightowl >8#


"Only dead fish swim with the stream."
Linda Ellerbee
New ...the concept of...high-value content...

It's a topic called "collaborative filtering", try googling that. Good pile of info at UCB I may link back later.

\r\n\r\n

It's the idea of picking out the gems from the mud by letting multiple people voice their assessment of content. Generally: while no one person can rate everything, and not all people will be in agreement, you can get relatively good results and complete coverage in many cases.

\r\n\r\n

There are both explicit (rate content) and implicit (impute rating from behavior) models. Systems like Kuro5hin, Slashdot, and IMDB are explicit. Google and Tehoma are implicit. Fascinating subject...for some of us.

--\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
   Keep software free.     Oppose the CBDTPA.     Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
New You scare me
-drl

Though my feet aren't on the ground,
I've been standing on the sound
Of some open hearted people, going down.
New I think he's ahead of the curve.
The curse of the 'Info Revolution' is the growing fading of the signal into the noise. Obv no 'rating' system can match a mind; but I can't see that being an excuse to simply abandon all efforts to try for "some help" - nobody has to accept a given algorithm.

If it's going to be a necessity when all this is 10x of today's volume.. best start early to at least ponder the matter.


Ashton
New Re: I think he's ahead of the curve.
I always feel like I'm listening to Hal - sorry Karsten - "We are all, by any practical definitions of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."

[link|http://koti.mbnet.fi/badbee/wavs/9000.wav|http://koti.mbnet.fi...bee/wavs/9000.wav]

Now the point is - what is the difference between

1) Foolproof

2) Incapable of error

If there is no difference, then Hal is being deliberately redundant - what is this, pride? Or an efficient swap file?



-drl

Though my feet aren't on the ground,
I've been standing on the sound
Of some open hearted people, going down.
New Re: ...the concept of...high-value content...
Uhhhhh I don't get any of that, sorry, and I have been avoiding "googling or Yahooing" anything I don't have to because searching the internet is one of the FASTEST ways to make Andrei eat all his resources in one or two chomps.

I'll keep it in mind for when I have my new computer, but most of what you said, I couldn't comprehend, sorry.

Nightowl >8#
"Only dead fish swim with the stream."
Linda Ellerbee
New Moderation 101
Have you ever been to [link|http://slashdot.org?|http://slashdot.org?] Any article may get several hundres replies and replies to replies. And there may be several dozen articles posted per day. Unless you are a speed-reading savant, or a bored high-school/college student, you can't possibly read everything. So how do you narrow it down? Moderation.

Several hundred people every day are assigned "moderation points" and they can rate any given post as particularly worthwhile, or not. Users can then choose to only see highly-ranked posts. By limiting moderation points to frequent visitors, the system attempts to filter out one-hit-wonders who just want to game the system. Of course bored high-school/college students just see that as a challenge ...

It's sort of like finding a movie reviewer you like. You can't see everything, so you find someone whose opinion you trust and go by their recommendations. Except that the sheer volume of new material on the net means the criticism had to be distributed. Figuring out how to distribute the load in a useful way is, to some strange people, fascinating.
===

Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
New Re: Moderation 101
Have you ever been to [link|http://slashdot.org?|http://slashdot.org?] Any article may get several hundres replies and replies to replies. And there may be several dozen articles posted per day. Unless you are a speed-reading savant, or a bored high-school/college student, you can't possibly read everything. So how do you narrow it down? Moderation.


I've never been there or anything like it, sorry. This is one of the biggest places I've ever been, along with Lighthouse BBS which was overwhelming all around.

Thanks for explaining it, though.

Nightowl >8#

"Only dead fish swim with the stream."
Linda Ellerbee
New Translation into English...
Lots of people out there write lots of stuff. Some of it is good. Some of it isn't. We generally like finding good stuff, and would prefer to ignore the crap. Of course there is too much crap for any human to wade through to find even a small fraction of the good stuff.

Can we get computers help? The problem is that computers can't tell what is good. However computers can look at lots of easy choices that people make, and guess what lots of people think about it. Odds are good that you will agree with other people.

For instance [link|http://www.google.com/|http://www.google.com/] ranks pages based on others linking to it - the theory being that I am going to post a link to something because I like it, and if I like it then it is probably good. And people like good stuff. [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org/|http://www.kuro5hin.org/] is a discussion forum that lets passing people easily pass judgements. The aggregate judgement becomes a rating system - highly rated stuff probably is good.

For most people this is a great thing for someone else to have thought about. All that they need to know is that they type their search into Google and get back quality results on virtually anything. They no more care how it works than they care what holds airplanes up - it is enough that it does. But Karsten is fascinated by how to get computers to do this, and what those algorithms mean for community dynamics. (Also what it means for Karsten's ability to find good stuff.)

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New a good example of that is snmp
I was working on a project a few years ago that involved the snmp networking protocol that uses a Managed Information Base or MIB for short. It was easy to search for those terms until a Movie came out called Men In Black after that snmp MIB was very hard to find without wading thru movie stuff.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Since corporations are the equivelent of human but they have no "concience" they are by definition sociopaths
New When did you become a moralizer?
Disappointed.

We're adults here, the arguments are silly.

To me, this is the guys, not the Brookings Institute or the Rand Corporation. Sheesh.
-drl

Though my feet aren't on the ground,
I've been standing on the sound
Of some open hearted people, going down.
New RTFT
Read The Fine Thread!

It's not about moralization - it's about making sure that people can read this board at work, where snoopish idiots who think it's their job to make sure that everybody else never is so much as willingly subjected to a swear word has to see one.
After 9/11, Bush made two statements:
1. "Terrorists hate America because America is a land of freedom and opportunity."
2. "We intend to attack the root causes of terrorism."

Sounds like everything is going according to plan.
New Fine
I too have a job with family people, who don't fall off their chair over words among the guys.
-drl

Though my feet aren't on the ground,
I've been standing on the sound
Of some open hearted people, going down.
New But...
There are those of us that work in palaces of Royalty that cannot look upon Foul language... and *IF* perchance they do... they will reprimand it of the offending person. If it happens again... or continues a few times... they may become the latest in a long line of public be-headings.

So Kindly... for those of us that *DO* work in a palace or choose to feel it is inapropriate, much thanks would be given for refraining from the potentially diasterous practice of Profanity in the Subject Title.
b4k4^2
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!]  
[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops apps for Linux by 2004]
Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at checkpoints.
New I said, fine
Sometimes I forget how nice and rare it is to have real people around me at work.
-drl

Though my feet aren't on the ground,
I've been standing on the sound
Of some open hearted people, going down.
New Much thanks then to you Sir deSitter.
Thanks alot!!!


and "Powered by Jerry Garcia!"
b4k4^2
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!]  
[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops apps for Linux by 2004]
Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at checkpoints.
New ObLRPD:
It's only a few more levels till we're throwing lions to the lawyers in arena combat.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New ObLRPD: Swiftly thereafter, Choco Taco delight.
Then: They're behind the couch.
===

Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
     Heh. Nice edit. Minor nit. - (inthane-chan) - (37)
         I'll tell you why. - (pwhysall) - (36)
             Well stated Peter. Ditto for my situation - work and home. -NT - (jbrabeck) - (35)
                 Tis annoying... - (bepatient) - (34)
                     It takes time to find and edit an offensive subject line - (orion) - (33)
                         This I know. - (bepatient) - (32)
                             Possibility: auto-munging of title on insert - (Yendor) - (6)
                                 Funky monkey dancing!!! -NT - (admin)
                                 Worse than that. - (bepatient) - (2)
                                     That... should be - (folkert)
                                     Moral-LRPD: I'm very sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue - (Ashton)
                                 The code is there - (orion)
                                 This I could live with... with a twist... (new thread) - (folkert)
                             Banning? No. Never. - (folkert) - (16)
                                 Re: Banning? No. Never. - (Nightowl) - (3)
                                     Peter also... - (folkert)
                                     We've been through those fires before. - (static) - (1)
                                         Re: We've been through those fires before. - (Nightowl)
                                 Re: Banning? No. Never. - (kmself) - (11)
                                     Cholmondeley's Annular Grillage Constant - (Ashton)
                                     Re: Banning? No. Never. - (Nightowl) - (9)
                                         ...the concept of...high-value content... - (kmself) - (8)
                                             You scare me -NT - (deSitter) - (2)
                                                 I think he's ahead of the curve. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                     Re: I think he's ahead of the curve. - (deSitter)
                                             Re: ...the concept of...high-value content... - (Nightowl) - (4)
                                                 Moderation 101 - (drewk) - (1)
                                                     Re: Moderation 101 - (Nightowl)
                                                 Translation into English... - (ben_tilly)
                                                 a good example of that is snmp - (boxley)
                             When did you become a moralizer? - (deSitter) - (7)
                                 RTFT - (inthane-chan) - (6)
                                     Fine - (deSitter) - (5)
                                         But... - (folkert) - (4)
                                             I said, fine - (deSitter) - (3)
                                                 Much thanks then to you Sir deSitter. - (folkert)
                                                 ObLRPD: - (admin) - (1)
                                                     ObLRPD: Swiftly thereafter, Choco Taco delight. - (drewk)

Credit grudgingly slathered, for consistency.
115 ms