deskthority

There are a lot of people who want rules to prevent other people posting stuff they don't like, but I find most of this is just a matter of opinion.

The four founders specifically set up this forum as a no-rules, free-opinion board except what is forbidden by law, because this hobby mostly attracts intelligent people who like to engage in their hobby without, for example, some crazy duck or other admin policing what they may or may not say. This has worked well so far with few exceptions (glossywhite and ripster spring to mind for endless spamming) which can be handled. The idea is that if you don't like a certain post, you can speak your opinion or ignore it, but forbidding it leads to all kinds of problems. You may agree with the moderators on one rule. You may not on the next. And one moderator may be good at his job, while the next may not. Also, I don't think a lot of admin is interested in moderating your ass (well maybe with one or two exceptions, but I don't see them moderating). We have better things to do, like obsessing over keyboards.

A good example how this cannot be divided is the problem of people editing out completed sales. I hate that. But people own their own posts. And may have a different opinion. We can have some guidelines stating it is frowned upon to edit out the prices and such, but people still own their own posts. The alternative is that -I- and the other founders own your posts. Do you want that? This is really a flat community in terms of hierarchy. It's just a bunch of guys obsessing over keyboards. Some take care of hosting and such. See it as a bunch of guys who meet in a pub to discuss whatever they obsess over. Do you really want two assholes to "lead" and tell you what you may or may not say or do? Or do you want equality, and if you think someone is an asshole, you deal with it, either by speaking your mind or by ignoring?

There are similar problems with ranking. With a relatively small community, in the end what you'll have is a bunch of people ranking their keyboard friends, with one or two exceptions, which are well known. I don't want to rank my buddies. Maybe that is not realistic with growth. But with this size it will be mostly anecdotal. Like one guy gives another a bad rating over some fight, and who's gonna judge who was right. Not me, please. Make up your own mind, without some rank attached to it.

Preventing editing out of prices post-sale has the benefit that it creates a permanent record of previous sale prices for others to refer to later. Whether this actually has value to the members of this board, I couldn’t say, but the idea appeals to me.

Regarding ratings, I’m not particularly opposed or in favour, but can see how some would be very keen to implement them. An informal rating system is already in place — the ability to drop into a thread, post, “Good guy, dealt with him before, no problems, even included a signed headshot with keyboard” — but it’s limited since it requires constant, manual supervision.

The other problem with a rating system is how you apply it to non-public sales. I recently carried out a trade/sale with another member via PM. If a feedback/rating system was in effect, how would that be captured? If you can simply rate a member at any time, without requiring it be linked to a sales thread, there’s massive potential for abuse. I could simply open a bunch of sockpuppets and rate myself highly. “Koralatov has got a rating of 10 flawless transactions. Most recent feedback from NotKoralatov3 and NotKoralatov5…”

webwit wrote:[...] the problem of people editing out completed sales. I hate that. But people own their own posts. And may have a different opinion. We can have some guidelines stating it is frowned upon to edit out the prices and such, but people still own their own posts. [...]

koralatov wrote:Preventing editing out of prices post-sale has the benefit that it creates a permanent record of previous sale prices for others to refer to later. [...]

One solution could be simply quoting sales posts. There are a few people for which I would systematically do that

webwit wrote:A good example how this cannot be divided is the problem of people editing out completed sales. I hate that. But people own their own posts. And may have a different opinion. We can have some guidelines stating it is frowned upon to edit out the prices and such, but people still own their own posts. The alternative is that -I- and the other founders own your posts. Do you want that?

Hmm, thought provoking, thank-you. No. I now realise that I don't.

webwit wrote: There are similar problems with ranking. With a relatively small community, in the end what you'll have is a bunch of people ranking their keyboard friends, with one or two exceptions, which are well known. I don't want to rank my buddies.

Is there some kind of site manifesto, that would be real good there. I think a site manifesto would be a nice thing to have.

Can I add it to the wiki?

xbb wrote:I like the second option.
Extra level is okay I think if there are not too many subforums,how you going to implement this?
Level 1 is a subforum and Level 2 is a prefix?

webwit wrote:Not sure yet. If we decide for the simpler one we can just use prefixes, unless we also group some more prefixes under one tab. There's also the possibility to make it a user option. Simple tabs by default, with the option for Advanced tabs. Besides doing it with subforums I guess there's the possibility to do it with subprefixes. The first mockup with one dimensional tabs is actually based on code I quickly wrote in a test.

I was thinking to make the tab look a bit like the buttons with the bottom border removed.

I was almost done, level 1 subforum and level 2 prefixes, which seemed the best solution, but then I found a fundamental problem with marking topics read while on a level 2 topic overview page (see snapshot below, when marking topics read I only want the current selection to be marked read). I think the only clean solution (also for search) is to make everything subforum based, and make prefixes based on the deepest subforum. More work, but the advantage is we loose the "dirty" prefix mod.

webwit wrote:There are a lot of people who want rules to prevent other people posting stuff they don't like, but I find most of this is just a matter of opinion....
.... Make up your own mind, without some rank attached to it.

I'm with everything in this post. Full ack.
Bottom line: There's no way to eliminate scam on forums.
People don't read ratings in general or will belittle bad ratings when the offer's just too good anyway. People will get their greedy illogical moments when something sparse will show up taking risks willingly.
Look how ebay sellers are continously receiving bad ratings over years, and people still buy from them. They might generate some cents less, but the buyers are still short on money and/or item.
People nowadays are always keen to sacrifice their rights and freedom just for the illusion of safety which cannot be obtained completely. It's virtual people dealing with virtual people so there's always risk involved, so live with it or stop doing business over the www.
I don't want these last resorts of trading amongst friends turned into a logical equation of how likely it is that the opposite party is going to take my spare money.
IF there is organised fraud going on it will be reveiled soon enough. If it's just one high ranked member turning into scamming buyers he propably needs the money more than me at the moment.

There's so much to discuss about this, but in the end imo:
A "Sorry for ya. Hug?" going to scammed buyers, better luck next time. A "schame on you" to scammers, please don't ruin communities. To everyone else: just leave it as it is, live contains risks.

Back on topic: How is it going duckman?

Slow, I have to redo it with a different implementation technique.

Huh? How come and which technique?

Implementation details. See further above.

I have to put the zeroes and ones in the right order.

Necroposting. Almost ready!

ooohhh, exciting!