You've underscored one of my points by starting yet another thread for the same theme. I don't see how such fragmentation benefits discussion, quite the contrary. Why should the discussion be better continued there than here?koolie wrote:Maybe we could try and do better here:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 521#231521
I would suggest that a proper forum requires:
A quality hosting site with proper defences, and adequate bandwidth to cope with spidering and external hotlinking, running unadulterated software that is up to the task.
A set of guidelines as to what is inappropriate behaviour/posting, and application of those guidelines.
An administrator who is interested in administering.
Moderators who are interested in moderating.
All images to be hosted offsite.
A section at the bottom of the main page, invisible to "search" and "view recent posts", and unable to be edited or replied-to, where all inappropriate posts are immediately relocated to for 24hrs max, pending deletion.
Habitual offenders to have all thier previous posts deleted after being issued with appropriate warnings.
New members be unable to post URLs or mailtos until they have made 50 acceptable posts.
How many of the above do we have currently, would you say?
_________________
You raise some interesting questions, which merit a much more detailed discussion than I have time for right now. Unfortunately, I lost an hour's worth of input earlier because I had forgotten to remove my [INSERT] key after testing the Seamonkey glitch for Sit Heel Speak last night. And I don't have another hour to spare right now.
However, just to address your post globally, if briefly.
Problem #1 is defining the scope of discussion.
For example,. "forum" is used for the entire structure of the publicly accessible bbs, as well as for specific threads.
Discussion of strictly structural problems of access, input, searchability, etc. would be better addressed in a separate technical thread, where they will not become submerged by tidal waves of lengthy theoretical and sociological, and philosophical debate.
Secondly, the issue of moderator and administrator "interest" is an issue that can really only be addressed with the full co-operation and participation of the moderators and administrator.
I agree that there are serious issues to be addressed, but there is no point in debating such issues unless those who have the power to address complaints and implement suggestions for improvement give some credible assurances that they are committed to the process.
It's not easy to imagine, given the present state of the board, how such assurances could be made persuasive, but perhaps a good start would be if the moderators opened such a specific thread such as "moderation issues", and began by individually (ie. not after deciding on a united front) describing how they see their role as moderator, and problems they have in carrying it out, what further powers they think are needed, and what controls on their power they would tolerate.
Then those who are interested might be persuaded to air their views on proper moderator behaviour and functions, and even voice specific complaints. But here you have a catch-22, because anyone who complains about moderation will inevitably be attacked personally by the ever-present, ever-vociferous "my Puppy, my forum, right or wrong - love them or leave them" crew.
And unless such a thread is properly moderated - NOT by deleting posts, but by appropriate public disapproval of ad hominem attacks and off topic rants - thoughtful participants will avoid it like the plague.
As for your rather draconian proposals to remove posts to a shaming spot for 24 hours and then erase them. Why is this necessary, and why for 24 hours? It would mean only those who log on at least once a day know what's being censored. If posts by legitimate users need to be removed, they should certainly be searchable and viewable in some archive, so that everyone can see for themselves whether the removal was justified.
The other proposal, to give those with less than 50 "acceptable" posts fifth class status (after the administrator, the moderators, those who log on at least once a day, and those who already have 50 "accepted" posts - this is guaranteed to drive away the most enthusiastic and potentially most constructive new users.
I regret I don't have time for more right now, but will come back to this later. I hope you will see your way to continuing the discussion here.
OTOH, if you renamed your new thread something like "Forum moderation issues", which I believe is the primary focus of your posting, then I'd be happy to continue the discussion there.