What's your opinion of a Karma Rating or Member Moderating system for DU?

Since the beginning, DU has been run on a traditional discussion forum system where a small group of volunteer moderators is responsible for moderating, based on a set of written rules (and some unwritten standards as well). The result is not perfect, there are plenty of problems and inconsistencies, and as DU grew larger and attracts more trolls, there has been a constant need to make changes to deal with perceived challenges. But overall I believe the system has been moderately successful, and contributed to the long-term success of this website.

Still, I have always had my doubts, and I have always wondered what might work better. For years, the admins have discussed the feasibility of changing over to a system which would give some moderating power to the members themselves. There are a number of possible approaches to doing this, which I won't even try to outline here. But the common theme is that regular members are given the power to regulate what is posted on the message board, using various tools to express their approval/disapproval of other members or their contributions, and even (through collective action) limit the ability of other members to participate fully.

Now that Democratic Underground has grown so large, I believe that it is time to consider instituting some kind of member-moderating system. If we were to do this, we would continue to have a group of assigned moderators to deal with various problems. But it is likely that the responsibility of policing things like incivility or flame bait would fall to the members themselves.

If done well, there are many merits to this approach. It would empower members so they feel they have some control over how the website is run, and how other people use it. It would give members much faster and more useful feedback about how their actions are perceived by others (and I think people might be more likely to listen if that feedback is coming from their peers rather than from a faceless authority figure). It would give members an incentive to think before they post about how their words might be perceived by others, and make an effort to foster constructive dialog. It would give members the ability to deal directly with those people they consider to be trolls or disruptors, without having to wait for the moderators to render a decision. Overall, I believe it would make people feel more like they have personal responsibility for Democratic Underground, and invest the efforts of every member in making this a better place.

There are also a number of possible drawbacks. The biggest issue is simply that we do not know for certain how this would work unless we tried it. We might change the fundamental nature of DU, take away some of the spontaneity and openness, and make it a much less rich environment. It is possible that small numbers of highly-organized people with their own agenda could take advantage of the system to enforce a more narrow party line than is currently permitted here. (Such action would certainly not be permitted, but that does not mean that some people won't try to do it anyway.) And of course, it could be an extremely harsh (but perhaps necessary) wake-up call for a few people who currently have no clue that large numbers of their fellow members do not like them.

So, I am curious to hear what you would think about instituting a member moderating system of some kind. Is it worth a try? Is the risk too great? Can it be done in a way that empowers the well-meaning members and marginalizes the troublemakers? Are there large groups of people that are so suspicious of each other that they could not be trusted to use the system in a good-faith manner? What are your thoughts?

Also, I would like to know who has had experiences actually using such a system. What works and what doesn't? What are examples of such systems that seem to work well?

I feel pretty strongly that, if done right, this would be a net positive for DU. What do you think?

Now I'll at least get visial aids to show me how unpopular I am. :D

fix it?

In essence, the way the articles rotate to the top of the list when a comment is left IS a sort of vote for that post.

If people don't like the post, they don't comment. The post fades away. It's that simple and that is sufficient.

I would vote 'no' to any further 'Karma ratings'. They only stifle opinion.

Personally, I'm not for it. I think there are many cliques on DU and to give this kind of power would put it in the hands of a clique. People in general get so upset about things on this board that I think the time it takes for a moderator to step in is a good calming down period.

If I find something offensive I either comment in a constructive way, or I don't comment at all, but it's just a board, it can't physically hurt you.

how would that be kept to a minimum?

I believe there could be a few checks in the system that could address this:

1) We would certainly have some sort of tracking system that would allow the admins to keep track of how the system is being used. If we have reason to believe that any person or group of people is abusing the system, we would punish them in some way -- such as take away their ability to participate.

2) There would like be a limit on who is eligible to participate in the system. For example, we could limit it to people who have a certain post count, a certain amount of time as a DU member, and who are maintaining a postitive karma rating from their peers.

3) Also -- and this is going to sound harsh -- I believe that having a system like this in place will make people less likely to act in such a way that would result in reciprocation. Put in more blunt terms: You won't act like a jerk because you know the other members will punish you for it.

I guess I worry about folks ganging up on eachother. It definately is a good concept, however if people get cliquey (and it's already that way) it could turn negative. That's all I'm saying.

"Put in more blunt terms: You won't act like a jerk because you know the other members will punish you for it."

Some people have different parameters for what constitutes "jerk"ness than others. Some people have lingering resentments and other personal weirdness that would bias the system against those they don't like based on some previous perceived infraction.

"2) There would like be a limit on who is eligible to participate in the system. For example, we could limit it to people who have a certain post count, a certain amount of time as a DU member, and who are maintaining a postitive karma rating from their peers."

I think this would alienate newbies, who are already pretty scared to do more than lurk. It takes time to learn the ropes and settle in.

I think it's an interesting idea, but I, for one, prefer the system we already have in place, as flawed as it is.

It is so subjective. There is not a criterion that is fair that you could apply to determine how much of a jerk someone is.

It is probably TOO subjective. See, I think someone who ridicules people who believe in God is a jerk. Others may think that person is terrific. Are we going to start DUing each other's posts the way we DU polls?

I like things the way things are.

(("2) There would like be a limit on who is eligible to participate in the system. For example, we could limit it to people who have a certain post count, a certain amount of time as a DU member, and who are maintaining a postitive karma rating from their peers."

I think this would alienate newbies, who are already pretty scared to do more than lurk. It takes time to learn the ropes and settle in.))


I agree with this point, completely. But to add on to it- as we all know, newbies are regularly attacked for having differing opinions. So, to have members who already attack newbies for differing opinions, to have the authority to cease a newbies participation, or however that may work out- may not be a good idea. A lot of newbies are already scared enough to post due to seeing others attacked for not completely agreeing with everyone.

I also agree with what everyone has said about the cliques around here. It may not, but then again it could, prove to be a problem.

Anywho, I think your current system works pretty good. :hi:

:)

Also -- and this is going to sound harsh -- I believe that having a system like this in place will make people less likely to act in such a way that would result in reciprocation. Put in more blunt terms: You won't act like a jerk because you know the other members will punish you for it.
*********************************************************

that could happen or it could be like school were if you are *popular* and in the *in crowd* you can say and do whatever you want and not get punished..but if you are not part of the *in crowd* or hold views different then they will make it an agenda to cause you probs and to try and get rid of you...

After what I have seen in the last few days on a different board on the net my own guess is that human nature being what it is the latter is the most likely to occur...

Not the freeper ones, but the ones who are short and to the point, two come to mind and they are some of the most popular and most repected postors here, one uses a lot of caps, I won't say more.

I know I will have a very bad "karma rating" if this happens.

Some of us really like to argue, and we are less than civil. We shout, we curse, we spit on our keyboards.

I don't know.

The other thing is that DUers with high post counts will get away with murder because of their status and history here, and less than pollyanna new postors will be karma-killed before they can even get their feet wet, because they will be "nobody", so to speak, no matter how intelligent they are or how much they have to contribute.

You won't act like a jerk because you know the other members will punish you for it.

Spend a few days on a scoop site like kuro5hin dot com and you will quickly learn that just the opposite is true with karma ratings. People actually act MORE like jerks, because fast crude hateful "witty" responses get more votes than a thoughtful or difficult but heartfelt response.

I see no reason to repeat the mistakes that have already been so widely made elsewhere on the internet. Such sites often become targets for trolls who open multiple accounts.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

sounding like jerks whether we mean to or not...(gulp)

BTW - until I figure out how to get it deleted, please disregard my sig line - the 800 number has been yanked. POO!

#1 is just creating more work for you guys and gals.

#2 doesn't fully account for 1000+ infiltrators. Remember Seventhson? Mobotu? Muddle of the Road?

#3 is highly subjective. Someone may think I'm "acting like a jerk" if, for example, I state that based on my own study the bible is not literally true. They might think I'm "acting like a jerk" if I state that "free" trade without worker protections is undemocratic. You can see where I'm going with this - it's always easy to offend some people, even groups, with a mere personal opinion.

As long as there are 1000+ post trolls, we run the risk when we restrict based on popular opinion. Some of us would give people like Pitt LIFE OR DEATH power, while others would ban him.

How about "Rate" but don't "Restrict" as a test?

Regards,

TD/TJ

But I also think that if the member moderation system does not have concrete restrictions on people who cause problems, nobody will bother using it.

We had a thread rating system here at one time, and nobody bothered to ever rate threads. There was no point in using the system.

See how it works! If the board winds up being miserable, you can always take it away.

How about "Rate" but don't "Restrict" as a test?

Regards,

TD/TJ

Something like "how helpful was this review" on Amazon.

If there are difficult posters here (and sometimes they can have lots of posts), I don't think I want them taking direct action against someone else without the intervention of a moderator.

I also think anything that intimidates newbies would be unfortunate. This can already be a pretty scary place for someone brand new.

Plus, "if it ain't broke..."

I didn't have a problem with it.

As someone whose political compass is southwest of the Dali Lamas I know I am "out there" and I know that most democrats actually live near the center or into the northeast quadrant I am a bit leary of populist censorship.

I'm a bit afraid of the "getting in line" group dynamic getting in the way of honest and honorably presented divergent, even far out, opinion.

...who loves to analyze patterns in data and online social organizations, I'm all for it :) If nothing else, it would be interesting...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If we let everyone use it, it would be wide open for abuse. See my response above to a question by ChavezSpeaksTheTruth.

At least they would have to pay to be a troll. My point is you never can tell who is a troll based on post counts and gold stars alone.

a moderator would be far less likely to zap him/her. I've been thinking that for a long time, after noting there have been occassional vicious personal attacks, hard right attitudes, and at times racism errupting from a name with a star and a respectable count (history of participation sounds kinder).

It tends to discourage posters who simply aren't interested in a knock-down, drag-out fight just to attempt to communicate with what is believed to be like-minded people.

Doesn't DU get some sort of info on them form a donation. I send money because I like the site but I always worry when making a politically natured donation my info get get into the wrong hands.

Why would trolls risk that. Their is no freaking way I would send Freeperville a check or give them my credit card, why do freeps do it?

This website is at the center of a psy-ops info war.
Most of us want to get out good info on the neocons and Repubs.

But the 'other side' includes the CIA and DARPA/Pentagon which needs the mainstream media to be 'credible' for propaganda purposes and wants to discredit the entire internet to keep people thinking 'wacky conpiracy theories there.'

That's why Fox and NYT dissed DU recently over the tsunami/science stories. Credibility lost is almost never recovered. Whistle-blowers and truth-tellers get smeared and neutralized very easily because of the way we make snap judgements.

This site is full of false-flag postings, infiltrators, confused enablers, angry nihilists, the cluelessly well-intentioned, you name it.

Hell ya it is.

I think they (freeps) know they are safe when they deal with Democrats, as Democrats don't have any reputation as being vicious, vindictive, or destructive. Democrats are no threat to them.

I couldn't imagine wanting to contribute to one of their sites, however. If you showed up as a troll there, you probably COULD expect to see a red-eyed beast sitting behind the wheel of a car/truck/RV/snowmobile/Segway ready to chase you down as you attempted to cross the street outside your house.

Just not absolute, to my surprise. It amazes me how far these losers will go.

then "lived" through the primaries here and in light of THAT fiasco, i'm not sure this is a great idea.

just my $.02

I think it is highly possible that the vast majority of members were disgusted by the actions of a small group of hard-core partisans, and would have used a system like this to reign in the most extreme and disruptive voices regardless of which candidate they supported.

Ref: "...as DU grew larger and attracts more trolls..." & "But the common theme is that regular members are given the power to regulate what is posted on the message board, using various tools to express their approval/disapproval of other members or their contributions, and even (through collective action) limit the ability of other members to participate fully."

Any "democratic" member-sensoring system needs to be bullet proof to a concerted attack by "trolls" so they do not cause problems by banning targeted members or editing tagteted posts.

It would be mob rule. The largest group would suppress the minorty.

It sounds like the ending of "My Kindsman, Major Malineux."

Those who are so disruptive and nasty, punitive or deceptive destroy the health of "democracy" because they, themselves ARE BEING anti-democratic by virtue of their suppressive actions.

With respect to Skinner's proposition, I would first express my appreciation for the invitation to comment. That invitation is democracy in action!

When I consider not only the "pros" and "cons", I believe the endeavor to be sort of a flip of the coin kind of decision EXCEPT when I also acknowledge how such a process would not only complicate but also s-l-o-w down the very vital freedom of expression which makes this board fulfilling.

An alternative could be a "confidential" member assesment scale of posters. The scale would be added to each poster's blogger identity square thingy (*LOL* I'm just making this up as I go along). The scale could be a 1 - 10 or A - J and an assessment can be posted by any member. Should a particular member reach some threshhold which indicates a problem, that member can be notified that s/he has received a poor assesment and must report to the "Moderator" panel. Then, those who rated the poster and the poster could be given the opportunity via a separate "mediation" forum to resolve their differences. If they can't,...a vote along with the reasoning will take place pertaining to the poster's fate with respect to continued membership (including a probation period of continued posting with a "red flag" on their blog identity).

This is just an alternative off the top of the nog. It's something I can better visualize as a means of addressing the concerns which Skinner seeks to address without depressing open, spontaneous expression and also avoiding the burdens and at least some potential abuses that an open invitation may create.

:shrug:

Democracy is a perpetual experiment requiring perpetual effort *LOL*.

I see no harm in implementing it on a trial basis. I share concerns that there might be the potential to stifle honest expression of less-popular beliefs, but as a whole this is a fair bunch and I think this could be a good thing.

The more that there is a "system" to be "gamed," the more that people will try to game that system. We already know that outsiders attempt to disrupt DU, and a user-moderation scheme would paint a giant target on our backs and invite disruption on an even grander scale, causing more pain and trouble for our "real" moderators.

We already have a small form of karma-assignment: "Nominate topic for DU Home Page." There's a human involved, however, and that seems to be a good thing.

Karma works well on forums such as Slashdot, for instance, where most topics are nonpolitical -- but even there, some would assert that "karma whores" are an ongoing problem.

What's the real goal here? Making DU's best content easier to find, not turning DU into a points-gathering game show that would encourage more "play" and less discourse.

for the disruptors.


But maybe it would make the disruptors more obvious. I don't know. :shrug:

No more, no less.

I believe that the vast majority of DU members are good people who can be trusted to use a system like this. I also believe that it is possible that large groups, acting in seemingly random ways, can be trusted to make judgements that are fast and relatively consistent.

I alos believe that members would be more likely to behave themselves if they know they are subject to being judged by their peers.

We have hundreds of long time regulars here. If the goal is to create a better experience, does that not require that there is some problem with the experience now? I don't see the problems that need to be made better?

What are the issues that are so severe that a complete restructuring in concept are needed?
The Professor

As I mentioned in another post, being the Admin, I am constantly fielding complaints. I am sure that it affects the way I see the site.

But, with a population this large, there are going to be some issues. I think you have to take a perspective on how big the problem is given the numbers we have here. If you're talking about tweaking the system, that's one thing. What you're suggesting is not tweaking. It's a major overhaul. I wouldn't have my engine overhauled because the air filter was dirty. Know what i mean?
The Professor

Ultimately the question is: do people trust the moderators and the administrators to judge their behavior on the message board, or would they prefer to be judged by their peers? We honestly aren't sure what the general consensus is on this question, which is why we've been discussing the possibility of karma rating system, and floated the idea in this thread.

But it could be nothing more than a matter of perspective. Bear in mind that many of our interactions on the message board are with people who think that the current system of moderation sucks, or is broken, or that we make too many bad decisions (see ATA). I'm perfectly willing to concede that our perspective is skewed by this. When your day-to-day interaction is with people who don't like the way the board is run, inevitably you'll start thinking, "how can we make this work better?"

If it turns out that most people end up disagreeing with the proposal of a karma system based on "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," it will at least help us regain some of that perspective.

Edited to add: I see Skinner managed to answer your question in a lot fewer words than I did :)

Not that i found fault with Skinner's, but your's made it even easier to understand the perspective that prompted this thread.

I think you guys have to understand that correcting a system to address the needs of the few is fraught with concerns about unintended consequences among the many.

The perspective for such a systemic shift needs to be very broad, prior to any execution of ideas.
The Professor

"I think you guys have to understand that correcting a system to address the needs of the few is fraught with concerns about unintended consequences among the many."

This thread is actually proving to be very useful in that regard.

Allow me to wax philosophical: "The definition of a 'problem' is a difference between the expected and the observed." (Some might quibble and claim it's the desired, but I won't get into that one here.)

I don't believe, based on the fact we stick around, the vast majority of longer-term members/contributors (in funds and/or posts) see a "problem" of larger proportions than a fly-swatter "solution".

I hope I'm forgiven for saying so, but ... it seems clear both from my experience and from this proposal that the Administrators do think there's a "problem" of such a magnitude it requires a rather significant change to both the forum software and member participation.

Well ...

Going back to our definition of a "problem" ... what are the components of a "solution"? Would a "solution" be more of a change to what's expected or to what's observed?

I've personally noted an apparent degree of impatience (and an occasional short fuse) on the part of Administrators that I'm not sure can be solely ascribed to personal issues. In other words, there seems to be a more general set of expectations ... amalgamated with some observations that I'm not in a position to make.

So ...

Perhaps the question needs to be asked more clearly: Whose 'problem' is it?
Once that's answered, it becomes a question of whether to change expectaions, observations, or both.

I think the moderators generally do a fine job. I've had one or 2 posts that were deleted that I couldn't understand why, but I never complained. There are judgement calls that need to be made and some moderators are more restrictive than others - just human nature. I don't perceive a great discontent with the moderation here. I would be very concerned if things changed as you propose.

There are a lot of freeps trying to derail discussion here. Then there are just some people who are out to aggravate people not really discuss things rationally. The mods could use a little help from us I think. Maybe something like this could be used with a moderate system.

Maybe we could just try it out with no penalties for a couple of months?

But I think it gets the point across.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3056834

the moderators and administrators, please. :)

groupthink.

mob rule is not notoriously just or reasonable

Troublemakers are either ignored, disregarded or outright scorned. You will open up many more problems by just trying to solve one problem. I think mob rule would be worse than what we have now which is organized chaos ;).

Surely we should all strive to better ourselves and surroundings, message boards inclusive, but changing for the sake of isn't, for me a good reason.

I guess I'm just curious what people's main complaints are and how this proposal would ameliorate them. If people are tired of seeing flamebait and incivility, would that really decrease with this system - or would it simply be dispatched with in, say, 1 minute instead of 2?

Do people really want to feel like they control a part of the medium? For me it's just a room here, that I'm thankful you all provide for us. I feel no need to participate in the choosing of the colors for the walls, or even who comes in, I'm just here for the people.

If it's that the mods are overworked or too busy tracking down lame things, that's a different story, of course. Though, I'm not sure it's a story that needs karma points as its resolution, maybe a half dozen more mods?

And, one final thought, if creating a better experience is the goal, in what other ways can the boards change? Surely we could potentially have a better experience as a result of any number of changes or improvements and I don't know whether the utility (Millian sense) of moderation control is great than other possible improvement. Overall it might seem to me to be an answer to a question that only few are asking.

But, of course, like I said, I'm thankful for the space you provide for us and the work you do. User level moderation schemes are not, a priori, a bad idea I'm just wondering who needs 'em. I guess it would be interesting to see how they worked.

Best.

m

I like this idea but I can see how worse case it would end up like you describe.

of course I have no idea how many hours of labor are needed to get such a system up and running. But assuming it's not onerous, why not give it a try?

honestly, I'm interested in how such a thing might work in practical application; I've never seen it in an online forum before.

It's so fraught with concerns over grudges, personality differences, and will tend to pit moderates v. radicals (whatever we define that as), or even on a position by position basis for the many DU regulars who aren't locked into far left positions on every possible issue.

Besides, on an mostly anonymous message board, how many feelings really get hurt and how many feathers REALLY get ruffled?

In my work as a consultant to industry, i am well-known for being critical of any attempt to adjust, modify, or change anything that's not really in an out of control condition. Despite the occasional dustups, i don't see DU as being out of control.

This could be a case of overcontrol in which the result is worse than the situation it was meant to improve.
The Professor

know that I'll end up being kicked off so I have a personal stake in being against this! :evilgrin:

I also share Chavez's concerns about people with vendettas.

Cliques could and would gang up on members whose opinions differed from theirs.

opinions you have detailed.

It descended pretty quick into a petty flame war. The board is one with ruthless moderation and a group of people across the spectrum and is business-related, so a certain amount of decorum is always present, but somehow the karma ratings just brought out the worst in people. Ultimately, the mods of that board got rid of the rating system within six weeks. I fear that such a system here at DU would be more trouble than it was worth.

ignorant.

what you get. I think John Kennedy once said, "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change". In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Being the Admin, I mostly hear from people who believe it is. :)

:thumbsup:

:shrug:

Every now and again, all of us need to be yanked back, me especially, but DU ain't broke.

:D

you guys.

Maybe you just don't hear that often enough.

:thumbsup: to all three admins and the many, many mods.

Make a DU poll on the issue and stick it at the top of every forum. I bet that will show you that people are generally happy.

It is still good to see you are always thinking of ways to improve the site and make it better for us. I like this idea but agree it could have some problems.

I think what makes DU work is the kind of people it attracts (except for the trolls). So to me moving in the direction of expanding on that potential is a good thing.

I would be against the peer system. I prefer to not go back to middle school.

I cannot imagine (despite all the possible safeguards) that it would not disintegrate into a middle school popularity contest once in a while.

and certainly the only one I can stand to post in. Ever since you initiated the volunteer moderator system (and I remember that most distinctly, since I was one of that first group of mods), the forum has had a mechanism for dealing quickly and efficiently with the worst disruptors and immoderate members. Sure, some dickheads slip through the cracks, but show me a perfect system and I'll show you one that doesn't have human beings posting in it.

If you're gonna do a karma type system, have the moderators and admins do it privately, without the ratings being visible to the membership at large.

It's the greater currents of the times that are making for the anxiety. I don't even mean the election result in particular...the ground is shifting within the Party and in the society, and it comes in hard lurches during times in which conservatives have control.

I haven't found DU particularly enjoyable during the past two months or so (-either-), with people so adamantly and loudly clinging to stuff that has to be let go and unwilling to listen. But you've done well just to let it pass without comment, David, as I see it. I don't think it will be over in a month, this disintegratedness in which people are so snappy and defensive, but it will diminish in three or four months or so (judging from previous periods of the sort on DU). I'd guess we need about six months, maybe nine or ten more in all.

Having said that, I suppose I come down on the side of keeping things roughly as they are. Maybe you should make very well known that you are keeping an internal record of complaints and will be actively- but privately- be putting people on stiffer warnings/probations/temporary bans. You may want publish the number of people on each stage- warned, probationed, temporarily barred, readmitted, - regularly (say, weekly), without comment, in some page accessible off the admin forum and just refer people to that- have a little Monopoly Jail icon. Linked to a little page with a red/yellow/green traffic light and a tombstone for the period's permanently banned, all with numbers next to each one and a little sign "We rarely or never respond to queries about any particulars of this as matter of policy. We will have contacted you if we believe that to be proper or productive. Last updated xx/xx/xx, last previous update xx/xx/xx".

You handle the trolls promptly and without fuss, you strive for fairness, and you don't have a heavy hand.

I like the existing system, but it IS your board, and you should do what will make the job easier for you.

It's impossible to always agree, or even get along. I admit I get a little peeved by people who regard me, an active, in many respects liberal, registered Democrat for my entire adult life, as a babykiller because I chose to serve in the military and defend our country, but hey, that's their opinion and they are entitled to it. I have an opinion about them, as well, I just don't go out of my way to express it! I figure the First Amendment hasn't been abrogated YET by the weecowboy, so they have a right to despise my career track if they so desire.

If people start flinging turds and being vicious, though, that's the time to hit that ALERT button.

Anyway, you should do what you feel is best. If you decide to change, and don't like the consequences, you can always backtrack.

the Lounge and election night "unveiled" themselves as Repugs??? It's entirely possible that someone like that could actually wield "power" with this system.

The "freeper unveiling" turned out to be a myth. But you make an interesting point. Since we've been discussing the possibilty of a system like this - on and off for a long time now - my biggest concern has mirrored what appears to be the biggest concern of most people posting in this thread: that the system would be abused or "gamed" by small determined groups of people.

However, your question about the freeper unveiling reminds me that such fears are probably unfounded - although these myths do live on, and perhaps exaggerate the fears of using a karma rating system. The fact is that there are hordes of people posting on this site, and the overwhelming majority are not here to disrupt. When you cut the number of people who can use the system down to a group of eligible users who meet certain criteria, in theory the large majority of responsible users should be more than enough to outweigh the effects of anyone who is trying to game the system.

Also bear in mind that we would develop the system with the potential problem of "gaming" as a critical factor, and would focus strongly on trying to eliminate that problem. And we would still have a system of moderators and administrators to keep watch to make sure the system is not being abused.

But as I said, I do understand your concerns.

The mods have banned several 1000+ disruptors that I can think of. The Great Unveiling may have been a psy-op, but 1000+ infiltrators do and will continue to exist.

for me and for explaining in a little finer detail about how the system would work.

while there be a good chance that the overwhelming majority are not here to disrupt,

"the fact is that there are hordes of people posting on this site, and the overwhelming majority are not here to disrupt. When you cut the number of people who can use the system down to a group of eligible users who meet certain criteria, in theory the large majority of responsible users should be more than enough to outweigh the effects of anyone who is trying to game the system."

Having the system gives them a better incentive to work harder and increase thier numbers here, which I don't want. If I want to hear freepers I'd to lurk on the pukebucket website. 2nd, the ONE person who gets (insert punishement here) the boot or whatever you call it because a majority of people didn't like his VERY strong support of Dean and the Deaniac blasted other people and then the Clarkies had him tarred and featherd and thrown out.

Trust me, DU is awesome the way it is...It is why it has gotten so popular.

Think Social Security, It ain't f'ing broke, so Don't fix it.

I see enough people who are insecure already that I wonder how they will deal with this. Will you have people who are convinced they are hated--and THAT is why their posts get rated badly?

Will you have people who are popular pets getting by with mayhem because everyone cuts them slack?

I've seen both things happen here before--and it is a part of the landscape. It is neither bad nor good--it just IS.

Maybe a "karma" rating would be the same way...

I do worry that people with an unpopular opinion will be drowned out. (To give an example, imagine being on here and saying anything nice about Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman--you'd be eaten alive!) We do need to hear it all--even if we disagree with it.

Whatever you guys decide to do is fine by me. Makes me feel guilt that I haven't offered to mod for a long time, however. I haven't been carrying my weight.


Laura

So that's not going to change much.

Except for the fact that the moderators are your last line of defense if you're one of the people holding the minority opinion. Usually, the mods get it right, but I have no doubt that plenty of good Democrats have been banned under the current system because they ruffled a few too many feathers.

I know it might sound too crass and petty even for them, but I could see groups of freepers or others coming together to leverage their power into some form of mischief - if there were any way to do so.

These are people so petty that they wanted to rename french fries because France wanted inspectors to finish the WMD search before the bombing started.

On edit: I see several people have beat me to the punch.

But I believe this is a legitimate concern.

There are also a number of possible drawbacks. The biggest issue is simply that we do not know for certain how this would work unless we tried it. We might change the fundamental nature of DU, take away some of the spontaneity and openness, and make it a much less rich environment.

MAINLY this portion:

It is possible that small numbers of highly-organized people with their own agenda could take advantage of the system to enforce a more narrow party line than is currently permitted here. (Such action would certainly not be permitted, but that does not mean that some people won't try to do it anyway.) And of course, it could be an extremely harsh (but perhaps necessary) wake-up call for a few people who currently have no clue that large numbers of their fellow members do not like them.


concern: a bunch of very organized freepers could use this system to reek havoc here and target long time and good DU memebers to be tombstoned?

It is otherwise well-meaning (or so they think) people that may have slightly different sensibilities, senses of humour, etc. that would make innocent posters out to be <enter your derogatory description here>.

and potentially worth a trial, but my concern is that people would use the system against those who disagree with them, not just those who actually violate protocol. I think the Great Primary War of 2004 is an example. I could see a lot of politically-based abuse of the system.

I believe such a system would be an invitation for abuse.

Look at Kos, there is plenty of sniping as to why someone gave somebody else a bad rating for expressing a different opinions. Multiply that by a factor of 100 on DU.

Also, my impression of DU is that it has increasingly attracted repug operatives, particularly so since the primaries started. A rating system would just give them another tool to foster discord.

A limited system would be worth thinking about. Only trusted members could be given the power to rate by mods, and ratings would be invisible until a troll warning threashold was reached. A little troll icon could warn other users.

Please reconsider using a naive rating system.

Why fix something that ain't completely broken?

however, I think there needs to be a way to correct abuses and safeguard against abuse of the system. I think that restricting the system to donating members would be a good deterrent to disrupters, but there is still the issue of cliques and groups that could abuse the system to silence opposing posters. It would be interesting to try, but it would need to be closely monitored to see if the abuses were occuring.

Why not try it out in the DU Groups where you have to be a donating member first?

That will give you the ability to give it a real run for the money with the better behaved participants before you go system wide.

Doesn't solve the problem.

If someone comes in and post inflammatory material--they are immediately flamed.
If someone comes in and posts something good--it is generally discussed at length.
If it is someone or some topic that nobody wants to discuss, it falls out of sight.
There are some great minds on here that are doing such important work--but it is possible that not everyone agrees with what they are doing or why they are doing it.
I believe this would lead to a type of censorship that nobody would like--and would prevent light posters (like myself) from posting for fear that I would say something that someone wouldn't agree with and then lose my priveleges.
This for some has become a haven from our outside lives. I spend hours reading--some good some bad. In our lives from here, we have to deal with fundies, etc and it is very nice to come in and see all ends of the spectrum of our party uncensored and to see very few attacks on them.
Just my humble opinion.

Nobody could be banned from the website by the rating system, that would certainly be too harsh. Decisions of banning would still fall to the mods and admins.

We live in a country that we give the power to people to make certain decisions based on what they believe would be best for the majority. I like the current set-up. But I do believe we have other options. If the admins feel overloaded in any way, why not have a group of members who work as aides for the admins. Even go as far as having all of DU get the chance to vote for these people? I don't know. Just a thought.

Mainly: We might change the fundamental nature of DU, take away some of the spontaneity and openness, and make it a much less rich environment.

I used to be a heavy plastic.com user. The user-moderation system worked OK there, but there was still an annoying amount of "karma-stalking" going on between people of different political backgrounds, even for personal reasons. It wasn't enough to become disruptive, but it was annoying sometimes. And plastic's only partly a political site. Here on DU, I could see a LOT of abuse potential given the rather extreme nastiness shown by people who insist on continuing to fight the primaries, flaming on religious matters -- I could name lots of topics that bring out the vindictiveness and asshattery of far too many DUers, and so can you.

And wouldn't user downmodding of suspected Freepers disempower the DU mods who are more experienced at spotting latent disruptors? I'd be embarrased to tell you how many newbs I've thought were Freeping who turned into long-term respected posters, and how many perfectly sincere "welcome" posts I've made to people who were nuked within a day.

Have you contacted Carl Steadman or the /. admins about this? If you think you could implement a system that would kibosh karma-stalking, that'd be great. I wouldn't be against it. But the two main reasons I migrated here from plastic were the faster pace of user-postings (plastic has editors and a submission queue - discussing breaking news is practically impossible there) and the lack of a karma system.

Whatever you decide, I hope it works for DU's betterment.

It is very helpful to hear the real-life experiences of people who have used such a system. If others have had such experiences, We would appreciate hearing about it.

It was FUN when I got mod points at plastic, mind you - you're dead-on right that it increased the feeling of meaningful participation. If there are any other current or ex-plastards around here, I've no doubt they'd agree on that. But the rivalries here are just so much more intense than any I ever saw there that a SlashCode type system here sounds like a disaster in the making.

Seriously, if you think you've got a way to keep karma-stalking and vendettas from posing a problem, great. If you do a trial-run, I'd be glad to participate. I'm just deeply skeptical of this working here.

like one of the state forums or non-poltical forum for a few weeks. I've used the rating system at another message board but they modified it so that a rating of 5 out of 5 would give the thread a flashing symbol next to it and a 1 out of 5 would lock the thread and give it another symbol next to it.

I don't know how many votes it took to kill a post, probably atleast 50. But it worked pretty well to keep the really bad/offensive threads locked and really excellent threads kicked.

This only applied to the original threads though, the mods over there still need to police the replies.

The system, I think, can work in a smaller group where the overall range of agreement is more narrow. The smaller individual forums here kind of mimic the characteristics of a small internet forum, tending to concentrate within them, people who share the same general area of interest. I don't think that the results from a small forum would necessarily be applicable to the board as a whole.

That place is chock-full of dogmatic and theological warfare, not to mention theism v. atheism battles. Obviously, religious beliefs are so deeply personal that I think the potential for grudges and vendettas (at perceived "persecution" or "attacks") would be quite large. This would certainly be an effective test, and could reasonably be applied to DU as a whole, as political beliefs seem to be a bit more malleable than religious ones.

I may not fully appreciate how much effort is required to keep things running smoothly, but the system we currently have works well in my opinion.

The changes being proposed could significantly alter the exchange of ideas on DU.

.

Here is what happens:

1) A few people gather up vast quantities of karma and become hugely influential on the system as a whole. In most karma systems out there, the more karma a person has, the more they can bestow upon their fellow board members. Most karma systems limit the numbers of times you can bestow karma on another person as well, and require the bestwoing of karma on a specific number of other mebers before you can once again bestow karma on a person you already bestowed it upon.

2) These few people develop followings of sycophants who control all discussion and quickly go up in karma ratings as the leader of the group bestows vast quantities on sycophants who then bestow karma upon each other, consolidating their karma power.

3) Karma wars break out between various factions. These are always coupled with flame wars making ordinary flame wars seem tame by comparison.

4) Eventually, a single group consolidates the most power and all dissension is stifled. Sucking up to the all powerful karam whores becomes all that the board is about.

5) The board becomes a site where all discussion is based upon how much karma can be accumulated through ass kissing rather than the original topic of the baord.

:shrug:

If that's where you want DU to go, it's your call.

Edited to add: Based upon my experiences with other boards that used this system, you would find infiltration by Freepers to become almost impossible to root out as they would become the biggest karma whores of all, would consolidate karma power, would have multiple sockpuppets expressedly for the use of karma whoring, and would eventually control all discussion on the board.

The sucking up sounds drown out any real discussion.

Although it doesn't sound anything like the system we'd discussed... I don't like the idea of people being able to "accrue" karma points in order to bestow them upon other people. We were talking more along the lines of a simple up/down system - either you have a postive rating or a negative rating based upon the votes of other members. If you have a positive rating, you're allowed to rate other people and posts. A post would need to be rated multiple times before anything happened to it.

The system would be based on the principle that one single person couldn't affect the workings of the message board, but that the members would generally have to act en masse. That would eliminate the problem of "karma whores" as you have described it, but of course leads us back to the problem of small determined groups of people trying to game the system. As I said in another post, that would be biggest concern while trying to figure this out, if we even proceed past this point.

'If you have a positive rating, you're allowed to rate other people and posts.'

If the MODS are over worked why not just get more MODS?
Or am I one of the assHatters and don't know it?

Do you really want to deal with this stuff? And what about the people that are unpopular? Do we just throw them and their opinions in the garbage just because they are:

moderate
tinfoil hatters
anti-DNC
anti-some candidate
anti-choice
pro-war
pro-death penalty
pro-religon

Or something else? You guys will ruin this place if you do that.

DU and their organized "infiltrations" here would be leary.

I dont have any problem with the current moderator system.

Occasionally we have a new mod who at least starts out as a trigger-happy thread nanny.
Generally I think it works OK.
As mentioned above, there are a few here who would relish the role of vigilante.
We might see some flame wars go nuculur.
;-)

If you are approaching this from a /. perspective (of which I am familiar) I think it could be a great idea. Minus the karma.

As someone mentioned above, karma-whoring can be ridiculous.

The moderating system could be very interesting, and beneficial. I heartily disagree with the post above that suggests limiting moderation to people that have thousands of posts. I can see that degenerating into a huge mess - as self-important "he who has the most posts RULES" posters already have difficulty restraining themselves when it comes to those with fewer posts that haven't landed in their clique.

If mod points were given randomly... I like it.

edited to add: (and clarify) mod points should be given to members randomly, and only a certain number (10? 20? 50?) of RANDOM members should have mod ability at any one time. The randomness of it, and the fact that not EVERYONE eligible on the board has the "power" at once should prevent most of the fears that have been expressed thus far from happening.

I'm basically thinking /. style, minus the karma.

It would establish a dangerous, officially-sanctioned precedent that is ripe for abuse--especially in the realm of politics. We have seen this happen in the past--especially during the primaries when it was camp vs camp. Ultimately, the process itself would have to be monitored.

Sometimes new ideas are unpopular and threatening- and often, when people are just familiarizing and maybe de-programming from the mainline spin, they are apt to react. The DLC debate is a good example of people discovering the forces at work behind the scenes, but often posters would confuse, what some might see as concern for the party's future, with Dem bashing. It is all part of the process. Being politically aware is part of it, for example, I never thought I would be a C-Span junkie, but observing the Senate in action recently has not only been educational, it has given me a much more positive view of, and appreciation for the Democrats and the course they are on. I really feel proud of them and I feel hope again. But, for a long time I didn't, and what others might define as bashing, for me was anger or breach of faith and a sense of urgency to address the failings- rather than just being a partisan cheerleader.

Hmm, seems I am running on with this, but I was trying to make a point.

I remember when we had a post rating system, and people gamed it. I can easily see this happening again. That would be an immediate mess, and basically annihilate the forum.

That having been said, there is some merit to the idea. What about a middle ground: Keep the standard cadre of moderators, and then deputize a good number of trusted regulars (20? 30? 50?) to fulfill the role you've described. Keep the deputized folks anonymous so people don't go looking for 'secret agendas' or whatever. That would take the burden off the mods, but would not open the system up to the mob at large, thus cutting down the gaming of the system that would inevitably occur.

P.S. I am not putting myself forward as one of the deputies. I am, in fact, a poster child for the kind of DU regular who shouldn't be given powers like this.

Eventualy, the number of deputies could be expanded if the system works out. The one thing absolutely required is the deputies would have to agree to never never ever divulge the fact that they are a deputy with the punishment for divulging such informaiton being immediate banning for life.

With great power comes even greater responsibility.

That might be a little harsh. How about immediate and permanent suspension of deputized powers instead?

Letting it slip to a few friends, yeah just remove deputy powers.

Posting on FR or CU about how you moled your way into being a deputy and then being discovered by Skinner? Ban for life!

can't imagine that not being a huge problem. Folks looking over their shoulder wondering if someone is one of the Secret Deputies.

Are you guys serious or joking around. :eyes: never thought I'd see DU'ers supporting such a thing.

The admins have always tried to be as transparent as possible when they make site decisions regarding DU, when new mods are chosen, etc. This idea seems to be the complete OPPOSITE of everything DU stands for. It seems highly undemocratic, just like a hidden smoke filled room.

I don't have a counter suggestions, just that this seems to scare me :scared:

If anything, just having more mods would be preferable to deputizing "top secret double probation" mods, imo.

Already trained and known. An interesting idea.

:evilgrin: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

((Post #254 on a thread like this is like throwing Golden Dollars into a landfill.))

:eyes:

B-)

And if you're going to throw money into a hole in the ground, throw it as a check!

:evilgrin:
I'm already dubious I'd be anointed, at least judging from the marginally civil (at best) tone of ... some communications. :eyes:
'Nuf said.

A nice move to a more open setting.

EDIT: I've never been exposed to a "karma" system but I assume it measures a group "feeling" about individuals, with a rating system like 0-5, 5 being "good" etcetera.

I wouldn't want too much power in the hands of the average user. For example: I get so emotional, I wouldn't trust my own judgment in such situations. Certain people should never be given too much power.

No system is going to be perfect. I feel that leaving moderation in the hands of those who can be moderate is the way to go. If you want to assign karma deputies, that would be fine, but allowing each and every person to have a say would cause DU to be more cliquish than it currently is.

I'm sure the mods do hear from people who think the system is broken. In some ways it is. Lately I haven't been able to go into either GD forum because of the flame wars and the apocalyptic threads that assume we're all going to die because of (nuclear war, global warming, peak oil, fill-in-the-blank). I thought the flame wars would die down after people got themselves together following the Nov. 2 loss. I guess I was wrong. As for the apolocalyptic posts, maybe those folks are right, but I just can't deal with it right now.

My solution has been to avoid both GD's and DU in general. :shrug: If people want to fight and talk about the end of the world, they should be able to. I can also walk away and find something else to do.

One thing that has often bothered me about DU moderation techniques, is that the Mods can only get "alerted" to one post at a time. There have been periods of time when I saw some sly infiltrators, coming in and posting marginal posts, and coming together with a supporter or two, to try to facilitate general confusion, or to start flames or argumentative posts about something, designed to take the given thread off the course of the discussion, or to discredit a point of view.

After participating on DU for these many years, these threads and posters I'm referring to above now stand out in striking contrast to the posters who truly are part of our community, and who are sincere in trying to learn or contribute in a positive way.

Occasionally I've alerted the mods to please do a "search" on this or that poster, in hopes that the mod can see a PATTERN of infiltration that won't be noticed just by one alerted post.

On occasion, I have kept a notepad of posters' names so that I could track their posts, when I suspected them of being low-key disruptors (the REAL infiltrators don't just come in and start flaming, because they will quickly get banned).

If, similar to what Will Pitt describes, we could have a "board" of deputized moderators who are responsible for researching a posters' overall posting history to help protect the community from these board "raiders"....and it would be the responsibility of donor posters of long standing to bring these "raiders" before the "board of deputies"....we could avoid some of the problems that we've seen, and the "karma" problem would not fall into the hands of "cliques", nor would it be done publicly.

This would require responsibility, work and effort on the part of the donor long-term posters, which I think is only fair to the moderators or the deputy moderators. If I'm going to send a report to the deputy or moderator, I will provide a history and the name of the poster, and his cronies if applicable, and a copy of a few posts that I think "prove" the basis of my complaint.

That doesn't mean that "I" am the one who bans this poster and/or his facilitators. It just means that I can make my case, and leave it to the discussion of the deputies, who can agree or not, and if they agree can send a recommendation to the Mods & the Admins to justify banning said disruptors or infiltrators.

So....it IS a "karma vote" of sorts....long-time posters and donors, who truly have a sincere investment in DU, can say: "hey, look at these guys! Here's what they're doing on this board." If, then, a few more sets of eyes see the same pattern, and then it's kicked upstairs to the Mods & admins, then we have a more justifiable avenue to get rid of the riff-raff than just hurt feelings or personal agendas or preferences.

It's more equitable, I believe, and less of a popularity contest, for the poster/donor who has a complaint to go ahead and do the research, and then make a case. If the poster/donor is just acting on their own agenda, it will be obvious to the deputies or the mods who have to REVIEW the case.

Yes, it's done in "secret". But it's done with due diligence, and it doesn't create bad feelings between posters, and doesn't fall to a popularity contest. And it won't be done without deliberation: if I'm going to take the time to make a case against a poser or infiltrator, it's not going to be done as a knee-jerk reaction, or just for the fun of it! I, for one, wouldn't waste my time! But I value DU enough to MAKE the time, if I see a pattern going on that is harmful to DU, and it will be up to the DU deputies or mods or admins to make the final decision.

It also stands the chance of cleaning up the board from some of the disruptors and infiltrators, or even those who inadverently but consistently take away from the overall enjoyment and efficacy of DU.

:kick::kick::kick:

There is far too much potential for abuse with a system such as what you propose.

I've run across numerous times where i've said something that was taken the wrong way by some members, or was misunderstood, or simply is a contrary opinion to what the majority of those participating in a particular thread might have.


And immediately i get jumped on and accused of freeping or some sort of liberal in disguise or whatever.

I'm nto a democrat - i'm an independent. a very liberal independent but nonetheless an independent - and i feel like if for soem reason i'm not toeing the perceived partyline on some subject, those who would prefer i confrom will do what true freepers do, and attack my beliefs or my loyalty or whatnot. if there was soem sort of karma system, i most likely would have been banned several times, simply for having an opposing opinion, or perhaps for jumping in to help someone else that's been misunderstood during a pile-on.


To me - it's readily apparent when there is a troll trying to cause problems, but i've been on the web for a long time. With some others here tho, they are entirely too paranoid, and it causes problems when trying to have a healthy discussion.



therefore - i don't think a karma system would work, because too many people who've had this sort of groupthink run-in would wind up banned, and it would stifle lively discourse.

that such a system might help YOU? I mean, wouldn't a person who had a high karma rating but expressed an unpopular opinion be less likely to be piled upon by virtue of their personal "cred."

Many long time posters can post more provacative and controversial subjects and not get flamed. Someone new or someone who always posts more conservative items gets flamed. I don't like it, but that is what I see on the board.

If I have known you for a long time and enjoyed many previous personal interactions with you I am more likely to listen to your opinion on a controversial topic. If you are new to me and express a provocative opinion I am more likely to roll my eyes and discount your point of view. That happens IRL too.....

With such anonymous contact, how else can you distinguish between the people with honest questions and the trolls? I do wish people would cut newbies posting more conservative items on the topic du jour, i.e. currently soc. security reform. Or better yet, treat each troll as a learning experience. Even if the poster is a troll, there may be other, less ideological people reading the thread who will be persuaded by the well thought out, logical arguments.

I'm just speaking from my personal experiences, and i can also say, that oftentimes when i've been jumped on, someone who is either like-minded or understands me has coem to the rescue, and i've doen the same when i've run across it.


however, this is a board with a lot of traffic and i quite often wind up in threads with handles i've never seen before, so the possibility of chasing off good people is always there, and i'd rather that didn't happen.



btw - i've also moderated at other boards, so i understand some of the dynamics involved - this board is much larger and busier than those tho. i find it hard oftentimes to make those repetitive "hey i know you" connections that lead to familiarity because of the volume. and i can't afford to be here all day every day to gain that familiarity. i just think that invoking a system like that would lead to a lot of good people being unfairly judged by those who are "concret thinkers" as it were. and one other important thing is, while on the one hand from an moderator perspective, it can help having end-users self report and let you know there is a problem, it can also wind up being a lot of overhead in terms of administrative work, following up on everyone that is in a certain danger-zone, only to find out they're not really the problem.


the only places i've seen a system like this really work are highly specific, high-level boards that focus on a specific matter, where either a psot fits certain criteria or doesn't. but DU isn't about that. it's a place to talk politics (which outside of religion is prolly the msot contentious subject out there.)

who I don't know, that it's hard sometimes to develop the trust.

not sure what the implications for that are though....

those of us who participate infrequently, or those of us who don't post dissertations in their threads, or frankly, those of us they just don't like for one reason or another.

Suppose I post a little comment in someone's thread every now and again...nothing big, just my 2 cents worth. What would stop that person from giving me a negative rating because I didn't post an essay? Or what would happen if the majority of a members threads got less than 20 replies? How long would they be around?

I went to a large county in Nevada recently for a training, while there I attended a County Dem meeting. There was an activist who stood up, alone, to challenge the party rhetoric on how our Repug SOS was someone who was easy to work with. She has been trying to get copies made of statewide precinct totals and is fighthing him in court. Funny thing to watch a group of "live" individuals shut her down. So much for democracy.

I am starting to wonder about most people and their inability to let more than one thought or opinion be heard.

might not be as useful as you'd think unless you make it a fairly sizable donation size, which would then rule out good, non-troll people who just can't afford it. The reason I mention this is because there are certainly likely to be freepers out there willing to make a small donation to have this power just because they're bored assholes.

Making people pay for it won't neccesarily prevent outsiders from abusing it. I doubt there is a way to prevent people from abusing it. People always find a way to take advantage of EVERY power. Its human nature.

Maybe a panel of long-time members who are known and respected and trusted to be fair could form a sort of board of appeals for people who think they are being unfairly targeted. A jury of their peers if you will.

A board-wide flame war. There are several groups of people here who dislike other groups. I don't like the sound of it. Perhaps I'm just getting conservative as I get older.

But I don't know how well it would work. Maybe you could set it up to give it to members with a certain amount of posts or time (as you have mentioned) and then maybe it would have to be a certain amount of these members to do something. For example; maybe 10 of these members will have to deem a thread as lockable.
On the other hand, I believe the moderators here do a great job and even though sometimes I disagree with a decision, I don't freak about it . I know they are doing what they have to do and they seem to be very fair.

On the other forums that I frequent, forums that are topically different than DU, user "scoring" of posts is usually misused if used at all.

Moderators have a job to do, and they have rules to follow. They also have some sort of accountability in that they need to be able to show cause for an alteration or deletion of a post. This helps to keep the method honest. Preferable to user scoring, IMO.

I mean, perform a trial, if it clearly isn't working after a certain amount of time, go back to the way we were.

But Walt Starr's post gave me pause.

:shrug:

I was a Sysop (System Operator)/Administrator for a large website where we attempted to create special classes of users and it was the worst thing we could have done...led to the destruction of the message board.

While some of these people one-on-one were great to party with and chit-chat online, something happened when they were given the power to sneak behind the curtain...banning posts and users, checking IP addresses and other games. Or, all you needed is one person to suspect another and stand back for the flame war. Definitely not something this place needs more of.

As others have stated, this site is very "cliquish". I've been a member since almost the start and still feel like an outsider in this place. This place needs to be more welcoming, not finding ways to be more segregated.

Thanks! I feel the same way.

People behind keyboards can get away with things they'd never do in person.

On a personal note: I still feel like a stranger here, too. I really don't belong in any of the cliques. Maybe that's just as well.

:D

Consider our greatest & most creative minds, they are NOT within the NORMal range, but are outliers.

If the goal is promote the "norm" the average and work towards a moderate centrism, the new system could work with serious checks and balances in place to prevent a mob rule. Even so, promoting the norm and squelching diversity and the minority is too close to group think for me.

You are sooooooooooooBUSHIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

"It is possible that small numbers of highly-organized people with their own agenda could take advantage of the system to enforce a more narrow party line than is currently permitted here."

I think it is more 'probable' than 'possible'

If it were possible to have a beta version on another server with limited membership but keep running DU as it is, I'd say to go that way. I understand the difficulty though of not really being able to see how it will work until you try it with a large user base. Is it worth the time, money and aggravation, when so many people get so much out of DU already?

let us call the trolls out when we see them. I know it's a no-no, but I really don't see the big deal. Once they are exposed they usually self-destruct and are tombstoned anyway. I think that the problem with the plan as presented is that there are too many trolls here already that could put a crimp in the system.

Just my .02

Jay

Because when it was permitted, anyone who dared say anything even slightly outside the DU mainstream was immedately labelled a Freeper.

The 'Freeper' label got flung far and wide during the run-up to and process of the primaries. Most of the people tagged with it didn't deserve it, but instead were clobbered for daring to oppose Kerry/Dean/Edwards/Clark/Kucinich/etc.

and the administrators were right to take away the Freeper accusations.

People remember the times when they get it right, and forget the times when they don't.

I've been mistakenly called a freeper before and I didn't like it. I also have mistakenly called another DUer a 'Freeper' by mistake too which I am ashamed to say.

I seldom see anyone called a freeper. Guess the mods get there before I do, so I don't see them. But I've been addressed as "Rush" by someone who failed to comprehend what I'd said. It hurt more than I was willing to admit at the time, but I didn't post again for awhile after that.

BTW, I like your sig line from Kurt Vonnegut. Can you cite a source for it. I'd like to refer to it in some of the discussions about how to take Jesus back from the wingnuts.

here you go:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/cold_turkey/

I've been called a freeper too. Almost everyone who's not a strict ideologue eventually steps out of line here and gets mud thrown at them.

when it was pretty obvious who the Freepers were and what they were doing. Lasted all of three months before it got out of hand, IIRC. Of course, during that first month or so, the Freepers were so blatant anybody could pick them out!

:D

there are smarter and more subtle ways of exposing trolls.

Jay

I think a lot of people, particularly newbies, don't even realize they can't say certain things and that they should hit 'alert' rather than react to bad posts. The alert system works great, as long as people use it...

I also really like the idea of anonymous 'deputies' who are invited to participate, as discussed above by Will Pitt and others.

But I don't like the idea of a Karma system here. For most of the reasons mentioned throughout this thread.

that's been my point, because it's happenned to me.


to be honest with you, from the time i've spent here, i think the trolls stand out like sore thumbs.

but i also think many people spend so much time trying to figure out who not to trust, that they miss the forest for the trees, so to speak. and wind up using this tunnelvision idea of what a friendly or a freeper might be, and wind up accusing everyone of freeping, when that's jsut not so.

once in a while.

If they're civil, and present their cases carefully and with consideration, I don't see the big deal. I think it helps us to have to debate them every so often, and once in a rare while someone may even be turned.

It's only when they revert to their reptilian brains that I get miffed. But we already have the alert and ignore mechanisms for that.

The problem with the Freeper call-out is that it can be used pretty much indiscriminately, especially in cases where a DUer just doesn't agree with a poster or just doesn't like the things the poster said about their cat. And history shows this to be true.

For all the reasons cited so lucidly by my fellow DUers. I see such a system being "gamed" pretty easily by people who don't have the best of intentions, and I also don't think there's anything wrong with the current system. But mostly I oppose a karma system because I don't:

1) post pictures of my cat, nor fawn over pictures of other people's cats
2) support the total abolishment of handguns
3) support the total abolishment of the death penalty
4) think Israel is the greatest nation on Earth and should be able to do whatever it wants to do to anyone at any time
5) think EVERYTHING any Republican does is fraught with intrigue and criminal activity

I would be banished in about 5 minutes under such a system.

I think it's unworkable. It just invites fights between radicals and moderates, Deaniacs and Clarkies, etc.

But I'm certainly up for a trial balloon.

and see how it works. I volunteer to be a guinea pig! LOL

I would like to be more help to moderators to help alert them to duplicate (topic) posts, etc. (esp in GD and GDP)

Maybe we could have a review board where if a DUers gets 10 or more complaints they have to have a citizens review and rebuke, and warning, maybe by limiting posting privileges for a short time. This would be for trollish type behavior.

1. "Karma" from non-moderators should not be used as justification for disciplinary action against ANY DU'er, even if Rush Limbaugh decided to join up just to cheese us off. The existing alert system should be the sole means by which users drop rolls of quarters upon trolls. On occasion, I will post something that, while not a troll post, nor breaking any of the DU rules, a significant number of DU'ers will disagree or take offense with. I would hope that the collective (but temporary) anger of 50 or so DU'ers wouldn't jeopardize one's standing here, since I do think I make significant intellectual contributions here at the Forums, even if one might not agree with everything I have to say.

2. It should be made well-understood that these rating systems are flawed at best, and should be considered for entertainment purposes only. I can see the day where DU'ers troll for "recs" at the Lounge, for example.

3. The rating system should not affect one's individual DU'ing experience in any way other than incrementing/decrementing karma. At DailyKos, for example, when you rate people, all of the *new* tags go away, and you no longer know where you left off in a thread, or which posts you haven't already read. This is a really nasty bug over at Kos, and it discourages me from freely handing out ratings.

4. As for the rating system itself, I would keep it as simple as possible. A thumbs up-neutral-down system would do nicely.

5. While whatever code is used to implement this should prevent repeat ratings for a given post, the identity of raters should be kept secret. This will help keep the ratings honest, and acrimony amongst DU'ers at a minimum.

6. As for trolls, it would be nice if there were some mechanism in place to prevent them from affecting the rating system, either by placing a minimum post count on raters, or by removing ratings by trolls as they are tombstoned. The former would probably be easier to implement.

The good news is, we can learn from the experiences of others' post rating systems and come up with something really good.

whne you rate at kos. I like the system there. 2 troll ratings and your post disappears!!!

Im not so much bothered by the idea of communal moderation as I am by the fact that your post, Skinner, suggests the express intent of that would be to let the acceptability of posts become a subjective judgement of personal taste.

I just dont see why you would want that.

Oh sorry wrong thread- Mods please delete.

I post on another board that has many forums, including a politics forum that is posted in by dems and freepers alike. (I would like to remain anonymous here at DU, so this board shall go nameless.) Anyway, about a year or so ago, this board implemented a sort of point system where you could "vote and comment" on what people would post which resulted in a negative or positive tally next to each members name. OMG, all HELL broke loose! Turned out there were and are some really nasty people over there who were seriously like the gestapo. They were so vindictive and mean it wasn't funny. After a lot of fallout, this system was yanked. Now the board has primarily volunteer moderators and though there are still some issues with bias, there are enough moderators on both sides of the political spectrum to balance it all out, though it's not always 100% smooth sailing.

only be visible to admins, mods, and the poster them self. I don't think something like this should be public because there could be plenty of faithful democratic supporters who would be openly shamed into not participating because they hold unpopular views. Those who frequently post in heated topics such as death penalty and gun ownership where liberals can be found on all sides of the issues could be unfairly penalizes.

I think big decisions such as banning people should always be left to the mods and admins but something like this would balance the need to help people realize they are going to far while not alienating too many.

Keeping it visible only to the admins, mods and to the person who is being rated. I think it might help members see how their behavior is being perceived.

Of course, if people don't get the satisfaction of seeing the rating they stick on someone else, then they are less likely to use it.

This site is full of info-war psy-ops dynamics already without adding another punitive level of chill to the discussions.

While Admin and Mod's see lots of tattle and flaming, I think the socializing etiquette you wish for would have all the drawbacks of a police-state chill.

Some of us WILL be targeted whether there is an abjudication follow-up or not. I'm already chilled on a topic where I tried to discuss a name from the primaries and Iraq and US history, got flamed, and Skinner locked not only that thread, but others with the same name in it. Skinner called it "disruptive old news" with an exasperated "sheesh."

So even topics discussed during the painful primary have become a 'no-go zone' for Admin and Mods. This effect will become much much worse under a rating system of any kind.

Trying to figure out who is 'with us or against us' in the outside world and this website is important. Respectful informative discourse is the goal. But the savage Red Scare will be here if a Chill System is used.

Virtue is its own reward.

If the "satisfaction" of a public pronouncement (scarlet Letters anyone?) is a significan motivation, then the act of rating isn't virtuous. I can easily do without a act where the act itself isn't sufficient reason to do it.

we say. DU is one of the very few places anywhere that we can post and NOT watch what we say (to a great extent, anyways).

If posters go too far, their post is deleted. But otherwise, and the great thing about DU, imo, is we can sit and let it all hang out without taking hours to "compose" a nice proper non-offensive bland boring post. Like real live spontaneous conversation.

I'd hate to have to watch what I posted on DU; why bother posting at all, in that case. Just IMO.

Sure the trolls can be a nuisance but like Malloy says it's sort of like a cat playing with a mouse. We are the cat and they are the little toys. Can be fun sometimes! I also feel that it might lead to curtailment of free ideas where people might be afraid to post something that might be unpopular. We need to field all ideas. I think we get to know who is sincere and who is just trying to say something to start an incident.

than simply tripling the number of moderators?
Also, if you establish some kind of rating system, what is to prevent a "clever troll" (unless that is an oxymoron) or even an organized cabal of trolls from playing the system for their own ends?

We have experimented with the number. We have found that if we have too many moderators, there is a loss of cohesion among the moderators, and enforcement becomes chaotic. I feel like there is a point at which it becomes unworkable.

is going to be substantially different. Or what Will Pitt said as deputized moderators. You are still going to have the chaotic problem.
If the problem is "burned out" moderators or moderators who play hookey in order to regain their sanity or composure. Perhaps you could have a list of subs, who could fill in for moderators who want a two day break, combined with others who have the ability and experience to pick up the slack, or a sub could sign in and/or be notified whenever there is a gap in moderators, or a surge in trollers.
Between alerts and ignore you already have a way for members to make their feelings known. There is also the "human torch" response - flame on!

which revealed how many people had you on ignore (eg, the numer appears in your posts for everyone to see), and which, if you wanted to do so, would let the people whom you have on ignore let you know that they're on ignore (for example, the names of the person who have you on ignore appear in a different color to the person on ignore).

The advantage of that is three-fold: (1) it's a gauge of your credibility -- if a lot of people have you on ignore, other people won't take your posts as seriously; (2) I think it would influence people's behavior: nobody wrties posts here hoping that nobody will read them and I think if you could see how many people weren't reading your posts, you'd change your attitude and be less idiotic; and (3) it would encourage the use of ignore to send messages, which I think is a beautiful thing. It would be the opposite of what normally happens. If someone gets angry at another person's post, they exchange dozens of nasty posts, and then complain to moderators, and then complain in ATA abot each other. Ignore would be so much simpler. It nips the problem in the bud.

There's also a risk for people who use ignore to send a message to posters who don't deserve to be ignored. That's that other people will continue to engage with that poster so the person who has used ignore will see threads where there are interesting debates but they can only read half of them, and then they'll have to waste their time updating their ignore lists to see what they're missing. So long as you have to click through a couple screens to reset your ignore list, I think people will be judicious about how they use it.

I brought this up before and I think the resistance to the idea was that people on ignore would then take advantage of the knowledge that certain people couldn't read what they were writing about them. But personal attacks have always been against the rules. Furthermor, ignore doesn't make your posts invisible -- if you had someone on ignore who persistently replied to your posts knowing you couldn't reade them, you would see that there was a message there, and you'd have the option of resetting your ignore list and readin the pos. Also, you'd have other posters who would PM you to let you know you should check something up. Finally, you could have some graphic that would let other posters know that a post in reply to yours is being ignored so other readers would know that you're not going be responding.


I don't think a member-moderated message board would work so long as you have mildly complicated rules. Members will never apply the rules fairly. If this discussion board didn't have complicated fixed rules, I think member-moderation would be fine.

So, I guess the question is, "do you like the rules you have?" If the answer is yes, then don't let every member be an enforcer of the rules.

Oh, one more thing: if you add this extra layer of dynamics at DU, I think it will detract from the debate because it will become so time-consuming for people who are trying to use the new dynamics to shut people up rather than using a good argument to shut them up.

That's another reason I like my idea above: using ignore is something that DU'ers already use. So rather than creating a whole new, time-consuming dynamic, it would just add a little more impact to something that people can easily incorporate into the way they already use DU.

We recently ran the numbers on this, and we found that there appears to be a surprisingly close correlation between the number of ignores someone has, and the number of problems they seem to cause. I think this would be really useful information for people to have.

You are correct about the problem of having complicated rules. If we were to institute a member-moderating system, we would likely get rid of entire sections of our rules regarding civility. Because it's unlikely that "the mob" would base their snap judgements on what is written on the rules anyway. They would just go on their gut.

Why is that? As I read these posts I see one common theme. That you want to let the unpopular people (possibly troublemakers) know how much they are disliked. It seems as if you are more interested in retribution than running a business. DU is a for profit company. You should concentrate on making money more than punishing your customers.

There may be people I don't agree with, but I'm curious to know what they have to say. The people whom I put on ignore are only the one-note fools who make the same false claims over and over again even after they've already been argued.

Putting someone on ignore is something many DU'ers already do, so it's not really punishing people. (Tombstoneing is punishment, and what I've proposed isn't a tombstone, and doesn't even lead to a (de facto) tombstone.

It's just giving them feedback in the hope that it will encourage them to modify their behaviour, or at least see that their credibility is not so great, and that the time they're spending here might not correlate to a lot of eyes reading their opinions.

And why do that? Because it's the best way to make DU a decent experience for everyone (even the people who discover that a lot of people aren't even reading what they're saying and then decide to take steps to remedy that).

Ever. I have never intentionally put anyone on ignore and I have immediately removed them if I did.

Why are you so hung up on "punishing" people? Besides the fact that something like what you are describing in your second paragraph is redundant, since when is it good business practice to "discredit" and "punish" your customers.

This whole discussion forum is about feedback. Posts that deserve feedback, positive or negative, get it. People build virtual "credibility" every day. That's why you have some people that are better known than others. For example, DuctapeFatwa always posted well thought out, interesting stuff. Many of us knew he was a must read. Seventhson posted tinfoil hat bullshit. I knew enough to not take him seriously. I didn't need any kind of rigged up metering to do that for me. And what do we do about people that aren't "credible" that post some great stuff from time to time. Do we just dismiss it? I guess the answer is that they have to build "credibility." But what would you even want to mess with this sort of thing. There is too much of a disadvantage. The current system does what you're stating and more.

DU doesn't have to be a decent experience for everyone. They're not here to please everybody and they couldn't if they wanted to. Unless everyone means the majority. Then it will be great for those people.

And there's no guaranteed uniform response. Some people might wear it as a badge of honor. Others might honestly want to broaden their readership.

And, unlike a vote or a karma system, you actually have to give something up when you put someone on ignore: you can't read their posts. You're punishing yourself if you're putting someone on ignore for no reason.

Currently I have nobody on ignore, but during the primaries, it was hard to make it through a thread without blocking out the insanity with the ignore feature. Which was good enough for me. But I really thinnk that if people had a sense that they were being ignored, many of them would chose not to be. (Which is why this isn't punishment.)

If you want less insanity, and you want DU to be a useful resource (and I'm talking about everyone here -- including the people who don't realize how much they're being ignored and would chose not to be if they realized it), I don't see how my idea is anything but helpful.

And I want to point out: Skinner says there's a high correlation between troublemaking and whether one is being ignored. I presume the troublemakers are very time consuming. I suspect DU could spend it's time more productively if it dealt with less troublemaking.

And my system, once again, doesn't punish troublemakers. It just puts them on notice. It puts the ball in their court. If they don't want to change, they don't have to.

If you put somebody on ignore, that somebody is incapable of posting in a thread you start.

Like I said, more draconian.

I don't know how often people purge their "ignore" lists. If a poster were to reform his/her behavior, I don't think there would be an appreciable decrease in the number of people ignoring that poster, because there would be no way to notice the improvement, hence no reason to remove the "ignore" setting.

Ignoring seems like it would take on a semi-permanent status without some sort of limit on duration of ignores.

taken people off ignore when I've seen thoughtful responses to their ignored posts.

Which is the beauty of it.

The best way to get that number down would be to get other people who aren't on lots of people's ignore lists to engage with you in sensible conversations.

Is this a common behavior? I don't use ignore and haven't talked with many other posters about it.

If it is a common behavior then I don't have a problem with the proposed system.

Is it to have the # of posters who have you on ignore appear on every one of your posts? If so, what is to stop abuse of this by a determined group who could deliberately put a poster on their ignore list for punitive reasons? Also, how would a poster know what the reason for the ignore #s being high, presupposing they were?

Isn't putting someone on ignore a private decision based on any number of reasons and not solely because they are 'flame-baiters', etc.

Is it to be a feature each poster can choose to have public or not?

Although it's certainly possible that people would ban together to put you on ignore so as to reduce your credibility, I think that could backfire.

If you start putting a reasonable, sensible poster on ignore en masse, you won't be able to engage with that poster's legitimate arguments.

If the poster really is an ignoramus, it won't matter, because nobody will be engaging the poster. They'll just have a bunch of dangling posts which include an indication that many people have them on ignore. (And I really don't think anyone will put someone on ignore just because everyone else is -- I think people might be curious why, but they'll make their own decisions.)

If the poster isn't an ignoramus, presumbably other posters will engage the argument. Therefore, for all the people who have them on ignore, they will see threads where there is a long interesting debate and they will only be able to engage half (or none, if they have all participants on ignore) of the debate.

For example, say it's primary season and you like candidate X, and you band all your X supporters together to put a very sensible supporter of candidate Y on ignore in order to hurt her credibility. What will happen is there will be great discussions about candidate Y in which no candidate X supporter can engage. Now, who's hurt more in that situation? The supporter of candidate Y with the high ignore number? Or are the supporters of candidate X hurt because they can't provide counter-arguments to Y's candidacy? I say it's the latter way more than the former who will be hurt.

I think that if people try to engage in a retailiatory en masse ignoring of one person, it could backfire in another way: that poster could always point out -- using the same hypothetical scenario above -- in a post supporting candidate Y that arguments like the one in that post are the reason they have high ignore numbers, and they all come from Candidate X supporters who have no argument so they resort to en masse retaliatory ignoring. So it could also be a badge of honor.

I think other DU'ers observing this dynamic will be able to tell for themselves what the story really is -- whether the person is an idiot, or if it's actually the quality of the posts that results in being ignored.

And remember, there's also the self-editing aspect that's important. Even if a person has a high ignore count because of their "courageous" and smart arguments, I really think DU'ers even want the people they don't like to be reading their posts. So, if you do in fact find that you're being ignored in retaliation, I think you might decide to modify your posts so that you have the broadest readership possible. Or, in any event, it would be choice you'd have to make: tone it down so everyone reads your posts, or keep on keeping on, knowing that you're only preaching to the converted.

To answer your last question, yes, I think that not only should the fact that you ignore someon count against that person's ignore totals,. but I think it might be interesting to have a feature that lets the ignored poster know who is ignoring them (if the ignoring poster choses to do that). For example, their screen names appear in red to you. That way you can have a sense of what it is that people don't like about you, but only if the ignoring poster wants to send you that message.

Another thing might be to have other posters know who is ignoring whom by, for example, maybe a red line that connects a follow-up post by an ignored poster to an ignorer's post (so the only way to know would be if the ignored person actually responds to the post). And since this second feature would give away the information about who is ignoring whom, maybe it would only be activated if the ignorer choses to reveal to the ignored his status (ie, they select the previous feature I mentioned).

Some other things to consider: tombstoned posters's ignores would be removed, and maybe even long-time inactive posters too. So, say you have an ignore list, but don't log-on for 2 weeks, then all your ignore "votes" get erased until you post on 3 consecutive days. That way, if someone wants to sign up under multiple IDs just to create ignore lists, at least you make it as time-consuming as possible for them to do that to discourage it.

I don't think this would be a wise idea. You'd only make it easier for them.

I'm sure you hear only the complaints, Skinner, but in the short time I've been around DU, I've been pretty impressed by the way it's run.

I'm afraid a change like this would ultimately result in little more than an unofficial competition for karma ratings, and DU as we know it would no longer exist. I'd hate to see that happen.

Others would just go along with the crowd, to not feel left out? And since we are basically faceless who cares if someone doesn't like someone else, shouldn't we be open to all opinions rather we like the Person or not? Just saying......We do have the means of blocking people we don't like and we have alert for trolls.


But I bow to the majority

If as you say, there are "a few people who currently have no clue that large numbers of their fellow members do not like them," then maybe they should be alerted somehow.

--IMM

Let me labor on with the delusion that others think I am as witty and as informed as I think I am.

No, it's not perfect, but with the size of this board, it never will be. I know it seems as if you spend your day answering why my "sex/bodily function/let's overthrow the government/wacked out conspiracy theory/bash the mod" thread was locked, but most of us are pretty happy with the way things are.

I think the one improvement might be to increase the number of mods in each forum - sometimes it seems like the trolls are here forever before being banished. I think that might be just a shortage of mods causing that.

Give me some karma please. :D

I think it will cause way too many problems, and I just know that there will be so many unnecessary threads dealing with the system. "Why don't people like me?" will probably be a pretty common thing.

I don't post very often in GD, but it's nice to know someone agrees with me on certain issues. :toast:

I think it would encourage two of the most disappointing behaviors already present at DU: Group think and newbie bashing.

The group think here is at times frightening. Any comment that is a degree removed from what is perceived as acceptable often goes up in flames. This is often tied to suspicion of the motives (admittedly at times warranted) of those with low post counts.

It strikes me that the type of system you propose would only encourage this type of behavior. Never having frequented a board with that type of moderation I can't speak from experience. My suggestion is that if you decide to take DU in that direction test it in one forum and see how it goes before taking it board wide.

I don't agree with every mod decision, but 90% of the time I do and I see the present system as the best I've seen.

Although if a new system is implemented then it could be trialled in the DU Groups first.

Be quicker and less painful.

I mean it seems like that would be the upshot of this system anyway--one opinion would emerge as the right one--say PResident Bush let 9/11 happen on Purpose (LIHOP) and people who expressed doubts about LIHOP would get negative stars.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

It is possible that small numbers of highly-organized people with their own agenda could take advantage of the system to enforce a more narrow party line than is currently permitted here.If they did it to our government, they could do it to your board.

However, if you want to try it, I would do it on a trial basis without making any of the results or tombstoning permanent if you decide that it doesn't work, in other words go back to square one.

The first drawback of implementing this system is that newbies would be more scared to start posting at DU.

The other is that the message board will become very dull. The whole idea behind a message board, IMHO, is that all views can be expressed. The flame wars actually make it fun! Are there really that many people whose feelings really get hurt by some insensitivity from someone they don't know and will likely never see IRL?

You could still implement a karma system though, but I don't think members should be able to limit the ability of others to post. What you could do is set up a function in which you can choose to ignore anyone without a certain amount of karma. This way everyone can decide if they want to read only posts of people who generally have respected, middle of the road opinions (and be sure they never get insulted), or read everything that is posted, including those fascinating flame wars, personal insults etcetera (and run the risk of getting your feelings hurt once in a while).

If you ignore people who have low karma because they have unpopular opinions than you are just insulating yourself so you only hear what you want to hear.

Isn't that the same reason people watch Fox News? (As Carville said, like a drunk uses a lamp post, for support not illumation) Does anyone really want to turn this into a place to come just to be agreed with?

I think silencing dissent, even on a message board is a bad idea. IMO.

My idea would be that anyone with low karma could still post any opinion he/she has, but it would be up to the other individual to decide if he/she would like to see it. If you have bad karma you can still participate, put your contribution would only be seen by a proportion of members.
This better than Skinners solution in which members with bad karma are not allowed to post AT ALL.. That is what I would call silencing dissent.

You are right that some people would perhaps choose to "live in a cocoon" (The Fox news life style), but I think may DUers will be open minded enough not block out too many people.
I personally would not ignore anyone, however low their karma would be.

On the other hand, this would still be a strong incentive for any serious poster to try to post high quality posts (which seems to be Skinners goal), because the higher your karma, the better your chances to get read by everyone!

but maybe because I fear my mob wouldn't come out on top, this one makes me nervous.

If you read the posts that get voted up there
you find that a consensus opinion emerges and
all others drop.

I think it has made slashdot a very predictable and
boring place because the obsession with karma
and getting more it shapes many of the posts.

Maybe a "did you find this post informative" button
and when it gets to a threshold of 25 clicks it
would be highlighted to draw attention to it.

This would keep gems from being lost in giant threads.

This is the BEST board on the Internet, bar none.