On Saturday 19 January 2008 09:12:03 am Druid wrote:
People who want to abuse and troll will keep on doing it, they'll cloak, they'll use other servers to connect with a different IP, they'll create new email addresses on gmail or yahoo, etc...
There is also different ways to troll. Some are blatant, some not easy to detect. Different people have different opinion what is trolling, etc.
This is why Pascal is correct and the voting thing you've proposed is completely doomed to fail.
Automated is far fetched idea, but voting system is not. Board needs something that will give them idea what majority of users want. In market economy is bad idea to ignore majority, it strikes back hard, and openSUSE is supported with companies that live on the market. The problem is: "How to detect what is acceptable for majority?" [...]
Those who will step up to be "moderators" [...]
Nobody was asked to step up. Volunteer is not only self appointed (that is how it works right now), but also the one that is invited and accepted invitation. Volunteer moderator is not necessarily with power to enforce decision, but for sure the one that has good judgment how to deal with irregularities (most of the time). It is actually good idea to separate judgment and execution. That will prevent personal affinities to influence decision. Take volunteer as Board trustee in communication media content matters.
First, with all that you want to force an infrastructure to be created (your vote out system), and who is goin to program, design and test it? I would prefer people investing their time in the distro, instead. [...] When I see people proposing "lets vote" and stuff in things like this I can not help to think that what you really want is to impose your own will by voting manipulation. Most things in places like this are taken by consensus, and not by voting. Sensible decisions comes by consensus, not by voting.
Above seems to address someone else, not me. I don't see any prerequisites in my possesion that will allow me to 'force' anything or to perform 'voting manipulation'.
In all media there are already "moderators" and people in charge. As I've said earlier, solving problems is all about solving problems. We can create a code of conduct, guideline, bylaws, constitutions, improvement day task lists, but they are going to be piece of internetic papers if people are not going to act and enforce on that.
+1
And from what I know, things are getting enforced. Let the people do their jobs.
It seems that it doesn't work quite well, otherwise Board will not come with idea that something has to be done. [...]
Who is solving disputes between moderators?
Nobody, in a meritocracy that's usually not needed, people are sensible enough to get to a common conclusion without needing to vote.
Meritocracy is not good if you are trying to convice somebody to use your product or you have to deal with volunteers. It works within company, where people are bound with will to make money, but outside is useless.
How user can verify that he/she is warned by moderator?
They already do in the appropriate media
It is about verification that warning came from officially appointed one, not from wannabe one. It is not only warning for one person, but for all that read the thread. Final warning will anyway come from list operator. -- Regards, Rajko --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org