Option 1 wins the poll. This is fine with me. It's technically very easy; I already finished the technical changes. Please come to rough agreement on a single listed owner. Once one exists, I will unlock the thread.
If you want to do some complicated organizational structure, that's fine, but it's probably best to figure it out later, since I won't unlock the thread until someone is taking responsibility for it.
It's not technically possible to have more than one moderator of a thread, or to apply additional posting restrictions to the thread, or to prevent posts from counting in that thread, unless I create a new section for it.
Here are the votes. Parentheses mean that the person has never posted in the WO thread.
Option 1
marcus_of_augustus
Syke
notme
iCEBREAKER
Gyrsur
Spaceman_Spiff
Wekkel
edgar
EAL
d5000
STT
Searing
arklan
yefi
icey
xhomerx10
DieJohnny
gentlemand
AlexGR
freedomno1
Hunyadi
redsn0w
explorer
Karartma1
criptix
JayJuanGee
PoolMinor
lightfoot
owlcatz
Torque
Miz4r
chennan
kurious
keewee
Denker
petahashminer
troleybüs
xyzzy099
ssmc2
Paashaas
m0gliE
sirazimuth
Globb0
Dotto
ShroomsKit_Disgrace
actmyname
InvoKing
User705
julian071
harrymmmm
Muhammed Zakir
soullyG
Digigami
_javi_
BlackFlag
RayX12
dave00
FractalUniverse
eXpl0sive
Stevenirving
siggy
cmacwiz
_Django05_
CoinHeavy
cgt99
Todorius
fichtn12345
MNDan
DrMsEr
machasm
Biro Bob
Scofield
discobean
ivomm
hodl_2015
Icygreen
QuantumMiner
(Quickseller)
(killyou72)
(coralreefer)
(Machina_US)
(LeGaulois)
(Mongwapogi)
(Maskedman)
(khufuking)
Option 3
Dabs
iCEBREAKER
jbreher
edgar
qwk
EAL
arklan
yefi
DieJohnny
freedomno1
explorer
criptix
Dafar
Torque
chennan
kurious
keewee
troleybüs
infofront
BlindMayorBitcorn
ibminer
Karpeles
Holliday
bones261
Globb0
Dotto
empowering
European Central Bank
julian071
Chainsaw
cafucafucafu
soullyG
TeeBone
DARKHOLDER
Iranus
flipperfish
stan.distortion
Last of the V8s
Stevenirving
_Django05_
CoinHeavy
kludzins
ðºÞæ
bitserve
fichtn12345
deepcolderwallet
discobean
Pajulapoiss
Icygreen
QuantumMiner
Italiacoin
SalmonBraker
(minifrij)
(botany)
(Quickseller)
(whywefight)
(U2)
(LeGaulois)
(magneto)
(BlackMambaPH)
Option 2
conspirosphere.tk
Dabs
jbreher
stereotype
edgar
EAL
arklan
yefi
DieJohnny
AlexGR
freedomno1
explorer
DaRude
mymenace
CoinCube
troleybüs
infofront
silverfuture
Karpeles
Globb0
Dotto
Chainsaw
starmman
soullyG
hv_
TeeBone
MrBig
flipperfish
stan.distortion
FractalUniverse
Last of the V8s
Stevenirving
fallinglantern
bitserve
dasein
hodl_2015
Icygreen
(Joel_Jantsen)
(U2)
(LeGaulois)
(Guajiro)
Option 5
Soros Shorts
EAL
DieJohnny
Meuh6879
freedomno1
petahashminer
troleybüs
ssmc2
m0gliE
veleten
YourMother
actmyname
mindrust
Lesbian Cow
Muttley
Hawkix
_javi_
MrBig
Coinnosaurus
stan.distortion
lemmyK
DrMsEr
Scofield
0rganic
degxtra1
(Quickseller)
(dida)
(Wapinter)
(Joel_Jantsen)
(U2)
(killyou72)
(LeGaulois)
(TheQuin)
(FlamingFingers)
(jbah01)
Option 4
OgNasty
notme
iCEBREAKER
edgar
smooth
EAL
Chef Ramsay
d5000
STT
DieJohnny
chennan
troleybüs
pooya87
Karpeles
birr
Muhammed Zakir
Pente
FractalUniverse
cmacwiz
droizs
Biro Bob
(botany)
(LeGaulois)
(Maskedman)
(TheQuin)
(jbah01)
Topic: What to do with the wall observer thread? - page 3. (Read 11024 times)
Rockets trains and memes are a tradition there, will they be lost?
Nope. I can't see anyone who loves the WO wanting to not have rockets, trains and memes. It's a bit of a red line for me, it's not the WO without fun and nonsense.
Rockets trains and memes are a tradition there, will they be lost?
If the thread's going to be restricted to member rank, I think another poll needs to be run on that. I'd probably be ok with the cut-off at full member.
It does seem like trying to give a grandness to proceedings where there is none.
Thank you for the invitation, but I'd rather not join a private group. If you're going to formalize some moderation policy for WO I think you have to base its values on those of its members. Maybe along the lines of:
If a post is funny, informative, intelligent or interesting it should never be removed unless it meets the subjective test of being sufficiently hateful, disgusting, misinformative or disruptive by the members of the WO.
The moderators seek to act in the consensus of the WO by making judgments on behalf of its members.
P.S.: Also, some organization is great but let's just take into account that we are not electing the next Pope 
It does seem like trying to give a grandness to proceedings where there is none.
So I created a Telegram group and PMd all you five. Now I will wait for you all to come so that we can discuss there.
Thank you for the invitation, but I'd rather not join a private group. If you're going to formalize some moderation policy for WO I think you have to base its values on those of its members. Maybe along the lines of:
If a post is funny, informative, intelligent or interesting it should never be removed unless it meets the subjective test of being sufficiently hateful, disgusting, misinformative or disruptive by the members of the WO.
The moderators seek to act in the consensus of the WO by making judgments on behalf of its members.
+1
That's not a bad start, would support this.
It's vague enough to allow reasonable flexibility and puts working for a rough consensus on behalf of the WO crowd at its heart.
I think the idea of having mods is to just to continue the forum but curb excess and the really extreme crap.
And if we have some, then we don't need to restrict the ability to post too harshly. Restrictions on number of posts etc is unnecessary IMO. It was working roughly OK and with mods it can continue to do so.
We only have a few people who have stepped forward, so how do we get a small team of mods from there in an uncomplicated fashion and try to agree a set of values such as this?
That would also be fine for me.
However, restricting the post number and the rank is not necessary according to me. Someone that joined just recently may be a lot more on-topic that an old account that has been sold. Especially, if there is a moderation team, this is in order to keep the calm, following loose rules, and avoid having too strict rules a bit Apartheid-like.
If the thread's going to be restricted to member rank, I think another poll needs to be run on that. I'd probably be ok with the cut-off at full member.
It does seem like trying to give a grandness to proceedings where there is none.
Thank you for the invitation, but I'd rather not join a private group. If you're going to formalize some moderation policy for WO I think you have to base its values on those of its members. Maybe along the lines of:
If a post is funny, informative, intelligent or interesting it should never be removed unless it meets the subjective test of being sufficiently hateful, disgusting, misinformative or disruptive by the members of the WO.
The moderators seek to act in the consensus of the WO by making judgments on behalf of its members.
P.S.: Also, some organization is great but let's just take into account that we are not electing the next Pope
It does seem like trying to give a grandness to proceedings where there is none.
So I created a Telegram group and PMd all you five. Now I will wait for you all to come so that we can discuss there.
Thank you for the invitation, but I'd rather not join a private group. If you're going to formalize some moderation policy for WO I think you have to base its values on those of its members. Maybe along the lines of:
If a post is funny, informative, intelligent or interesting it should never be removed unless it meets the subjective test of being sufficiently hateful, disgusting, misinformative or disruptive by the members of the WO.
The moderators seek to act in the consensus of the WO by making judgments on behalf of its members.
+1
That's not a bad start, would support this.
It's vague enough to allow reasonable flexibility and puts working for a rough consensus on behalf of the WO crowd at its heart.
I think the idea of having mods is to just to continue the forum but curb excess and the really extreme crap.
And if we have some, then we don't need to restrict the ability to post too harshly. Restrictions on number of posts etc is unnecessary IMO. It was working roughly OK and with mods it can continue to do so.
We only have a few people who have stepped forward, so how do we get a small team of mods from there in an uncomplicated fashion and try to agree a set of values such as this?
Don't kill the thread.... it is way too much fun the way it is- and besides there is the whole rest of the forum for everything else... this is an old timers thread - and its got history man!
Everyone knows what they are getting with this thread - and if they don't then they soon do.
Where is Adam anyways?
Everyone knows what they are getting with this thread - and if they don't then they soon do.
Where is Adam anyways?
Adam went full big blocks and bounced to that other forum.
As an aside, I suggest we give moderation authority to your monkey.
Monkey is AWOL
Put a two post limit per day per user on the WO thread. That might incentivize a better signal to noise ratio.
A two post limit would make intelligent conversation difficult. It would push traffic into one of the alt-walls.
I won't be joining a Telegroup either. Honestly, I just volunteered to delete the Hitler moustaches.
Put a two post limit per day per user on the WO thread. That might incentivize a better signal to noise ratio.
*also no newbie accounts
*also no newbie accounts
If the thread's going to be restricted to member rank, I think another poll needs to be run on that. I'd probably be ok with the cut-off at full member.
It does seem like trying to give a grandness to proceedings where there is none.
Thank you for the invitation, but I'd rather not join a private group. If you're going to formalize some moderation policy for WO I think you have to base its values on those of its members. Maybe along the lines of:
If a post is funny, informative, intelligent or interesting it should never be removed unless it meets the subjective test of being sufficiently hateful, disgusting, misinformative or disruptive by the members of the WO.
The moderators seek to act in the consensus of the WO by making judgments on behalf of its members.
P.S.: Also, some organization is great but let's just take into account that we are not electing the next Pope
It does seem like trying to give a grandness to proceedings where there is none.
So I created a Telegram group and PMd all you five. Now I will wait for you all to come so that we can discuss there.
Thank you for the invitation, but I'd rather not join a private group. If you're going to formalize some moderation policy for WO I think you have to base its values on those of its members. Maybe along the lines of:
If a post is funny, informative, intelligent or interesting it should never be removed unless it meets the subjective test of being sufficiently hateful, disgusting, misinformative or disruptive by the members of the WO.
The moderators seek to act in the consensus of the WO by making judgments on behalf of its members.
I am glad that you made that point, yefi. Probably better to just have that kind of conversation in the open...
At this point I guess it is just a list of CANDIDATES.
Just because it is *only* a list of candidates, that doesn't mean we need to put every idiot from WO on it.First step is to know who would be WILLING to help. Everyone can propose any names... but the candidates need to take a step forward and explicitly express their willingness... And it will be way easier if they just put their name in the list.
The best kind of help is removing this thread altogether. Wouldn't it be better to do it based on account creation? Something like you can't post to WO if you haven't been registered in the forum for at least 3 or 4 years.
This is an interesting idea that deserves some serious consideration ...
If the thread's going to be restricted to member rank, I think another poll needs to be run on that. I'd probably be ok with the cut-off at full member.
It does seem like trying to give a grandness to proceedings where there is none.
Thank you for the invitation, but I'd rather not join a private group. If you're going to formalize some moderation policy for WO I think you have to base its values on those of its members. Maybe along the lines of:
If a post is funny, informative, intelligent or interesting it should never be removed unless it meets the subjective test of being sufficiently hateful, disgusting, misinformative or disruptive by the members of the WO.
The moderators seek to act in the consensus of the WO by making judgments on behalf of its members.
P.S.: Also, some organization is great but let's just take into account that we are not electing the next Pope
It does seem like trying to give a grandness to proceedings where there is none.
So I created a Telegram group and PMd all you five. Now I will wait for you all to come so that we can discuss there.
Thank you for the invitation, but I'd rather not join a private group. If you're going to formalize some moderation policy for WO I think you have to base its values on those of its members. Maybe along the lines of:
If a post is funny, informative, intelligent or interesting it should never be removed unless it meets the subjective test of being sufficiently hateful, disgusting, misinformative or disruptive by the members of the WO.
The moderators seek to act in the consensus of the WO by making judgments on behalf of its members.
Also, I don't remember seeing that sort of attack (on a considerable scale) for.. maybe since a year ago?
I don't think you stop much more of that attack by also restricting Jr Member, Members, or Full members. And for the few ones that could happen, banning would do wonders.
Any restriction over "newbie" account seems overkill and unjustified to me. Maybe I am wrong.
It's clear Marcus argument is not the reason theymos locked the thread!
I assume I was not around when that happened, is it enough reason to accuse me of being as evil as Jihan Wu himself?
Does the fact of someone's account being 6 months old say that they're this forum's enemies?
Should they not be allowed to participate in important threads?
Anyway I've been advocating to YES, PLEASE, PREVENT FORUM ATTACKS FROM NEWBIES. But stop here. A Jr Member can contribute and aggregate as I did myself and every Legendary was once a Jr Member.
I was being ironic (see the "Now seriously..." part). I have already stated I am against that sort of restriction. The only one that I would think reasonable is restricting *newbie* accounts... and even that is not something I really like.
The history of WO attacks are based on newbie accounts that were getting created by a VERY well-resourced entity. They were able to create up to 10 (or more) newbie accounts daily from seperate IP addresses that would spam the board and WO thread especially with pedophilia referenced posts, old-man porn, alt-coin discussion (mostly ETH) and other crap just to intentionally crap up the place and discourage new bitcoiners from reading useful information about pricing expectations.
The solution to that attack was to ping the newbie accounts for the Off-topic posts and then ban those accounts from the forum. They kept creating new accounts from separate IP addresses (do you know how much that costs?) and attacking WO ... you can ask Lauda who was moderating at the time to verify these facts.
Then when the Off-topic defence eventually proved effective then the attackers are now bashing the Off-Topic button to get regular users posts deleted, posts which are not disruptive or turn the place into a dump. Now the Off-Topic defence is getting attacked and the forum moderators are sick of defending those attacks we find ourselves locked out of WO (and arguing against potentially the same attackers trying to keep newbies disruption possibilities, disrupt this discussion and shut down the thread altogether).
I know where you are going. I remember those attacks, in fact I wasn't participating in WO at that time because it was a mess with all those "flooding posts" and the like. I don't care scrolling down a posts that I am uninterested in, but it was a pain having to scroll FULL PAGES full of ascii spam or whatever.
If that's what you want to prevent it would probably be enough with restricting *newbie* (the rank) accounts from posting. Creating new accounts from different IP's is cheap as fuck (more so when this board accepts TOR so you don't even need your own proxies)... farming their activity to even become Jr Member is expensive.
Also, I don't remember seeing that sort of attack (on a considerable scale) for.. maybe since a year ago?
I don't think you stop much more of that attack by also restricting Jr Member, Members, or Full members. And for the few ones that could happen, banning would do wonders (and it's more costly for the attacker).
Any restriction over "newbie" account seems overkill and unjustified to me. Maybe I am wrong.
I was being ironic (see the "Now seriously..." part). I have already stated I am against that sort of restriction. The only one that I would think reasonable is restricting *newbie* accounts... and even that is not something I really like.
The history of WO attacks are based on newbie accounts that were getting created by a VERY well-resourced entity. They were able to create up to 10 (or more) newbie accounts daily from seperate IP addresses that would spam the board and WO thread especially with pedophilia referenced posts, old-man porn, alt-coin discussion (mostly ETH) and other crap just to intentionally crap up the place and discourage new bitcoiners from reading useful information about pricing expectations.
The solution to that attack was to ping the newbie accounts for the Off-topic posts and then ban those accounts from the forum. They kept creating new accounts from separate IP addresses (do you know how much that costs?) and attacking WO ... you can ask Lauda who was moderating at the time to verify these facts.
Then when the Off-topic defence eventually proved effective then the attackers are now bashing the Off-Topic button to get regular users posts deleted, posts which are not disruptive or turn the place into a dump. Now the Off-Topic defence is getting attacked and the forum moderators are sick of defending those attacks we find ourselves locked out of WO (and arguing against potentially the same attackers trying to keep newbies disruption possibilities, disrupt this discussion and shut down the thread altogether).
Be clear of what you're accusing me of!
I was being ironic (see the "Now seriously..." part). I have already stated I am against that sort of restriction. The only one that I would think reasonable is restricting *newbie* accounts... and even that is not something I really like.
The history of WO attacks are based on newbie accounts that were getting created by a VERY well-resourced entity. They were able to create up to 10 (or more) newbie accounts daily from seperate IP addresses that would spam the board and WO thread especially with pedophilia referenced posts, old-man porn, alt-coin discussion (mostly ETH) and other crap just to intentionally crap up the place and discourage new bitcoiners from reading useful information about pricing expectations.
The solution to that attack was to ping the newbie accounts for the Off-topic posts and then ban those accounts from the forum. They kept creating new accounts from separate IP addresses (do you know how much that costs?) and attacking WO ... you can ask Lauda who was moderating at the time to verify these facts.
Then when the Off-topic defence eventually proved effective then the attackers are now bashing the Off-Topic button to get regular users posts deleted, posts which are not disruptive or turn the place into a dump. Now the Off-Topic defence is getting attacked and the forum moderators are sick of defending those attacks we find ourselves locked out of WO (and arguing against potentially the same attackers trying to keep newbies disruption possibilities, disrupt this discussion and shut down the thread altogether).
and this is why, of late, i don't post much...
dear god guys, take a breath.
dear god guys, take a breath.
... oh boy, a noob spamming a WO-related thread with made-up controversies, machine-gun quote-spam posting and dragging posters into irrelevant side-arguments ... how original, where have we seen that before I wonder?
No wonder deepcolderwallet is shilling for noob accounts because he's just going to create another one when he gets kick-banned for excessive disruption.
... how original, where have we seen that before I wonder?No wonder deepcolderwallet is shilling for noob accounts because he's just going to create another one when he gets kick-banned for excessive disruption.
Ok, try it.
You can say whatever you want based on the fact you arrived here first, but I'm here FOR REAL, I want to participate and I'll fight till the end to have my right to do this. I don't need to create another account, and I WON'T DO THAT. If theymos decides I don't deserve here that's okay, there are other sources of knowledge. But I am sure his opinion diverts from yours.
Wouldn't it be better to do it based on account creation? Something like you can't post to WO if you haven't been registered in the forum for at least 3 or 4 years.
This is an interesting idea that deserves some serious consideration ...
Have anyone realised that Hero's and Legendary's have achieved that rank for being "prolific" posters?
Wouldn't it be better to do it based on account creation? Something like you can't post to WO if you haven't been registered in the forum for at least 3 or 4 years.
Now seriously... Theymos has already stated that signatures won't show up on WO and that, just maybe, the post count won't increase. Isn't that enough to stop most of the nonsense posts? No signature campaign earning nor activity farming should do wonders.
I would understand newbie accounts not being able to post as they would only need a couple of weeks to achieve the rank and it avoids someone just creating new accounts on the go to keep spamming the thread. Other than that seems too much a restriction to me... but if that's what most people want, why not?
I am not gonna cry for that
Wouldn't it be better to do it based on account creation? Something like you can't post to WO if you haven't been registered in the forum for at least 3 or 4 years.
Now seriously... Theymos has already stated that signatures won't show up on WO and that, just maybe, the post count won't increase. Isn't that enough to stop most of the nonsense posts? No signature campaign earning nor activity farming should do wonders.
I would understand newbie accounts not being able to post as they would only need a couple of weeks to achieve the rank and it avoids someone just creating new accounts on the go to keep spamming the thread. Other than that seems too much a restriction to me... but if that's what most people want, why not?
I am not gonna cry for that
Because your account is pretty old and it won't affect you!
But came into Bitcoin last year and I've been participating in this thread almost DAILY! That is such a source of information, the same way I've been adding some REAL WALL OBSERVATIONS to debate. Is it fair to rip off people like me, who are SERIOUSLY coming to Bitcoin recently? How is it contributing to our so dreamed S-curve of adoption? Do you really want to turn my retirement savings into an "ONLY-THE-OLD-COMRADES" club?
I was being ironic (see the "Now seriously..." part) because I find this discussion completely absurd. I have already stated I am against that sort of restriction. The only one that I would think reasonable is restricting *newbie* accounts from posting... and even that is not something I really like.
Jump to: