Topic: What to do with the wall observer thread? - page 6. (Read 11024 times)

excellent points. couldn't agree more

I think that the best idea would be an election amongst the volunteers - and the highest vote getter would get the position, subject to Theymos approving.  Then if the other volunteers want to work with the highest vote getter, then that person could appoint them to help when s/he is going to be absent or unavailable for such duties.

Less of a mess, and surely any winner of the vote would already understand the thread culture to sufficiently identify what constitutes loose, rather than strict moderation.

So you would like to turn it into a formal and periodical election ? That would be "fun", but not sure if that would be the best solution to be efficient.

I rather thought about a "founders group" that would agree about this "constitution" you talked about, and would stick to it. This group would be better for me to ensure moderation. In this manner, in my opinion there should be for now the original members, and only them, at least at the beginning. If there is no reported problems and moderation goes fine, I see no reason why they should be replaced, don't you think so ? Supreme court is a good exemple I think, and in case of major fault or something like that, President theymos would remove the concerned person. At that moment there could be an election, or a nomination by theymos if you want to stay on Supreme Court theme.

What do you think of that ?

Now that we are starting to get a good amount of candidates stepping forward, some clarifications:

1) Theymos hasn't clearly stated if he wants one single owner/moderator, an owner responsible for a team moderators or a team of moderators.

2) He has only requested that "someone" composes a list of CANDIDATES, but again it is not clear if he wants a preliminary list of candidates or if he wants the WO community to already give him a list of consensuated candidates.

3) So at this point we are just doing a preliminary list of anyone who would be willing to be owner/moderator once the thread gets unlocked.

4) It seems that Theymos wants to give us a saying on how the thread will be run. He just don't want it to be a PITA for him or for official bitcointalk moderators. This is very reasonable.

5) It also seems that in both voting options that could finally win, there will be a policy change that would result in BTCTK moderators to completely ignore any reports based on "Offtopic" leaving that decision to WO local moderators. The report button will also inform of that. Ie: No reporting on the basis of "offtopic".

6) If I am not wrong, most or even all of candidates atm seem to share the idea of moderating lightly, trying to maintain WO more or less as it was. If any candidate thinks otherwise I would request that they please state so. That way everybody knows what to expect and if there is a community voting/election people could exercise an informed choice.

7) I requested that candidates add his name to the list themselves. As noone seems to be doing it I will try to keep the list updated, but only once per day. Atm only addition is BlindMayorBitcorn, if there is more please state it in this thread. Also it would be advisable that candidates edit their entry expressing what their moderation style will be.

8 Personally, I would like to have an additional multiple-choice poll so that people can really support/veto the candidates. But I suppose it is up to Theymos to say if he will allow us to do that.

9) Another personal opinion I have is that a "comitte" would probably be too much hassle and probably inoperative. An structure with one listed owner responsible for the thread and a team of moderators to support him in his duty would probably be the most efficient. BUt, again, it is up to Theymos to decide that.

10) I think the best is that we debate what we want to do, and then just ask Theymos if it is ok for him. I don't think he is the very least interested on the drama, just solutions.

P.S.: Also, some organization is great but let's just take into account that we are not electing the next Pope

I agree with you, I think we must try.

Suggestion:

Coalescing around a 'constitution' for a group or groups with a minimum moderator size to be maintained (say a minimum of three) then the group, or different groups publishes a short (say max 200 words) proposed moderation policy 'statement' to be stickied at the top of the thread if it's voted in.

Within the winning group membership can be changed (but to no less than three) by a majority vote within the group to change its membership.

Should there be a fixed term?  Ideally, yes - but is it getting too complicated, or is it a sensible thing to have to be re-elected every now and then as a reminder that it's not their property forever?

Happy to debate - but what is likely to work?

Unlinke BlindMayorBitcoin, I am not fond of those forks. For me the most important is to keep the thread running. It is legendary and a piece of history, and I would like very much to see it alive again. Forks can live beside it, but shall not replace it.

The best to me is that the team choose itself its members, from a common agreement of them, because, from my point of view, there is no better team that one from which members do like working together.

A team would also be an interesting experiment, so that would be fine for me.

I think we should try the continuance - the other threads can survive and beat it, if it isn't any good.

Which is a good way to ensure it is like the original as much as possible.

At least now we have some candidates.

I think we're all wary of picking our own dictator, so assuming we agree it can't be one person, what's next?

An open election to pick members of one team, or teams line up around their own team agreement to be voted on as a team?

Theymos might run a poll if we ask him.

And we can always vote for the candidates who don't want to over-police the thread - after all it's what is unique about it, it would surely be popular?

We might want to consider just sticking with the multiple forked versions. Moderation by committee could well result in a mess of deleted posts and ruin the free-wheeling spirit of the very thing we're trying to save.

I don't post there because it's always been a garbage bin to me. There is good info but it's usually buried.

I went with 2, 3 or 5 haha. 5 wouldn't help out btctalk mods tho.

I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread.

I wouldn't want the responsibility of being the sole moderator. A small team moderation approach seems like the best idea to me, as long as the mods have a reasonably similar vision for the thread, and what's appropriate. That said, we'd need to agree on some rules. There are fairly strict rules listed in Adam's OP, but they were very loosely enforced. I'd rather see very relaxed rules that are strictly enforced.

if there is to be a group of people who do it, those guys need to come up with some type of constitution that they're all happy enough with.

it could descend into chaos if one person is taking against a post's theme when it's fine with everyone else.

I think this is mostly true, especially for Stolfi.

Notlambchop, on the other hand, did cross some lines, which was when he would post distracting and irrelevant bullshit.

These moderating ideas can be tough - even though I agree that the default should remain a kind of tolerance, especially if there is arguable substance.

By the way, group moderating seems like a bit of a mess - but if you can think of a way to make it work, then it could be a decent experiment.

BlindMayorBitcorn has asked to be added to the list.

And it is a truism that the converse is true, also.

The people that ought to have power generally don't want it. Isn't it always the way.

I agree wholeheartedly with 'keeping the spirit' and I would be happy with a party I trusted to do just that.  You, Elwar and Gentlemand would be the sorts that I reckon would be fine (no particular agenda, clear thinkers and a sense of humour), and I would happily offer to help / dep to any of you.  I think it IS a lot for one person, so if it has to be one, but he can appoint deps - it would help.

I think a loose group would ensure a wider range of views approaching a rough consensus with the thread itself and (importantly) it would curb any tendency towards megalomania - the binding ethos should be to simply keep the spirit of the old thread.  Which means we would necessarily have to tolerate any Stolfi or Lambchop types even if they did piss us off.

Either that or we just vote for a random crazy pot-smoking drunk to ensure chaos rules and see what happens.

If option one allows for a group to moderate the thread, I'd be happy to be a part as long as the permissive spirit of the thread is upheld. 

If option one doesn't allow for a group, then I was thinking the OP could employ a mod bot. Select members could pm the bot with a #postid to report or remove content. The OP could limit or revoke this right for a user if they were abusing it.


That's part of the problem. Those best able to moderate may not wish to seek approval. I'd put forward a number of people like Elwar, Gentlemand, etc...

Jr members are allowed to vote - confirmed. Just casted my vote - happens to be the most popular options: #1 and #3

Been here for some time and honestly, cannot imagine better go-to source of latest info about the market. I agree, there is a lot of crap to sift through, however, isn't all internet like this?

God bless the WO!

If you add yourself, bitserve, then that is six volunteers.

Maybe this group could share the job.

If a vote is needed (and it looks like option 1 is winning) then maybe the group stand as one entity and the vote can be opened up to anyone else who wants to stand against it, or anyone within the group who would rather stand alone, of course?

We can have a chat about some essential agreement on how we would moderate collectively - which we could publish (and then how we organise any rota, so there would not be too many moderating at the same time).

Also a loose system for sorting out any disagreements on collective policy / replacing a mod with a new one if needs be over time (majority vote of existing mods?).

Thank you for seeing me. About your requests :  I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long.