Suggestion

SimpleSam06

Not to discuss the current situation affecting the boards.ie company that I have read about here in feedback, but if I can make a suggestion about avoiding any further issues like this? I have a certain amount of experience in forums and message boards globally, and I have to say 99% of them are hierarchical, like boards, admins at the top of the pyramid, moderators, then users and so on. I run a couple of them myself.

However, because of this moderation, boards is responsible for the content on the site, no matter who posted it. A number of discussion forums have encountered the same problem, so to speak, and have come up with some unique ways to work around it.

One of the most elegant I have found is to simply remove the top down moderation element entirely, and make the site user moderated. The extant example of such a site would be slashdot, an extremely high traffic site. Users who have posted a lot of comments are given moderation privileges at random, to mod up and mod down a comment, 5 mod points, with one moderation point allowed per post, and if you post in the discussion yourself, you lose all mod points spent in that discussion.

Logged in users can decide the threshold they want to view comments at, with the lowest being -1 and the highest being +5, with categories for moderation like "funny" or "insightful" or whatever. Users who are consistently modded up gain a permanent +1 to their comments, and again can moderate at random times. Of course these priveleges are rescinded if they are consistently modded down. Suspension from posting and banning are all also automated, based on the number of moderations down.

Tracking abuse of moderation is likewise automated, for example one user spending all 5 of his months mod points modding down another user is flagged and has moderation ability removed for six months or whatever. I don't know whether they encrypt IP addresses and refer to the hash or what, but I don't think they keep IP addresses.

The main thing however, is that all content is visible if you want to see it, the site owners have no control over what gets posted or otherwise. In the US this is called common carrier status, and I'm none too sure what the legal situation on that would be here, but I strongly suspect it would be something similar. If there is no owner responsibility, users can post what they like and its up to the community at large to decide if it should be seen generally or not. In certain circles that might lead to bedlam, but boards seems to have a good and responsible community, many with thousands of posts under their belt, so I think it would work here.

It would be a very interesting project to fuse that style of site with the current boards site, albeit quite a large one. I can absoloutely guarantee that this issue will raise its ugly head over and over again unless it is resolved, however. If this post is out of line feel free to snip and remove at will, just adding a few thoughts that maybe might help...

Edit: plus for bonus points the source code for slashdot is open source and freely available...

Sparky

But still the issue arises that if the content was posted, it can then still be viewed.
The fact that the site owners have no control what gets posted is a "no go".
Thats like letting someone use your weapon for murder and you knowingly let them use it.
Boards at the end of the day is a limited company, so again fall liable to anything posted, even if the above system was to be used.

antSionnach

Jayyyysus.

Theyve enough trouble with the search function, being able to see who is in a forum, downtime and bottlenecks. I reckon that system would bury boards altogether:D

Anyway, slashdot probably only use it because of the amount of traffic they have and the difficulty in monitoring all posters and deciding who should be mods themselves. Boards doesnt have that burden really.

ecksor

I'm familiar with slashdot. I dislike it but that might be a reflection upon the linux mentality I associate it rather than the moderation structure. I'm still not keen on the structure though.

In the US this is called common carrier status, and I'm none too sure what the legal situation on that would be here, but I strongly suspect it would be something similar.

Ireland is not the US and boards.ie definitely does not have common carrier status in Ireland.

SimpleSam06

Sparky-s wrote:

But still the issue arises that if the content was posted, it can then still be viewed.
The fact that the site owners have no control what gets posted is a "no go".
Thats like letting someone use your weapon for murder and you knowingly let them use it.
Boards at the end of the day is a limited company, so again fall liable to anything posted, even if the above system was to be used.

I'm not at all sure thats how it works. As far as I know, if you have a disclaimer like in slashdot, The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. at the top of every topic, you are fairly in the clear. Its more like telling them they can use their own weapons, in your public space. The owner of the space isn't responsible, just the user themselves. Still it is a different situation, you're probably right on it. Sigh.

SimpleSam06

ecksor wrote:

I'm familiar with slashdot. I dislike it but that might be a reflection upon the linux mentality I associate it rather than the moderation structure. I'm still not keen on the structure though.

Yeah it can be a bit psycho in there sometimes. They have a massive brain trust though, that can't be denied...

ecksor wrote:

Ireland is not the US and boards.ie definitely does not have common carrier status in Ireland.

Well yeah, I didn't say it was. I don't know if common carrier status or its equivalent even exists over here. If it does, however, allowing user moderation puts boards in that category. It seems to work for them is all...

CuLT

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Well yeah, I didn't say it was. I don't know if common carrier status or its equivalent even exists over here. If it does, however, allowing user moderation puts boards in that category. It seems to work for them is all...

Aye, well, I'd be surprised if ISPs didn't operate under an equivalent to the "common carrier" status, but as far as I can gather, boards.ie is counted as a publication.

So putting a disclaimer like "these do not represent the opinions of the site owners, etc" would be equivalent to the Irish Times doing so

oscarBravo

ecksor hates Linux! ekcsor must die!!1

Sparky

oscarBravo the idiot wrote:

ekcsor must die!!1

And quoting from the wiki

He dislikes timewasters and people who spell his name wrong even if it's written in front of them

oscarBravo

Bloody spelling nazi. You should be in spell czechs.

SimpleSam06

CuLT wrote:

Aye, well, I'd be surprised if ISPs didn't operate under an equivalent to the "common carrier" status, but as far as I can gather, boards.ie is counted as a publication.

So putting a disclaimer like "these do not represent the opinions of the site owners, etc" would be equivalent to the Irish Times doing so

Hmmm. The Irish Times selects what it chooses to print however; in the suggestion I am making, it would be entirely user moderated, so the owners of the ball park don't decide what kind of games are played there. The community decides that, although in slashdot they do post up what topics to talk about. Easy enough to adjust so users can do that too...

You're dead on about the ISPs having some kind of common carrier protection though, otherwise they could be held responsible for every dubious item that flows through their pipes!

SimpleSam06

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Hmmm. The Irish Times selects what it chooses to print however; in the suggestion I am making, it would be entirely user moderated, so the owners of the ball park don't decide what kind of games are played there. The community decides that, although in slashdot they do post up what topics to talk about. Easy enough to adjust so users can do that too...

I still think it wouldn't change the situation by which boards.ie Ltd. would be liable for whatever would be posted up.

SimpleSam06

Myth wrote:

I still think it wouldn't change the situation by which boards.ie Ltd. would be liable for whatever would be posted up.

If they had common carrier or its equivalent status, they in fact would not be responsible in any way in a real sense. FWIW, some of the alternatives I have seen include hosting in Uzbekhistan and using two shell companies on the pacific rim for payments...

stevenmu

Another problem is that slashdot is primarily a news site which allows for discussion of articles. The discussion which takes place is for the most part (imho of course) not fit for consumption by normal rational human beings. There tends to be 3 or 4 'hot topics' and every thread, no matter how distantly related veers towards one of these and ends up being a replay of the same old argument with the same old fanboys.

(there are of course exceptions)

SimpleSam06

stevenmu wrote:

Another problem is that slashdot is primarily a news site which allows for discussion of articles. The discussion which takes place is for the most part (imho of course) not fit for consumption by normal rational human beings. There tends to be 3 or 4 'hot topics' and every thread, no matter how distantly related veers towards one of these and ends up being a replay of the same old argument with the same old fanboys.

(there are of course exceptions)

Well I wouldn't suggest a total transition to a slashdot style site, just keep a few of the better ideas. The non threaded discussions on boards, in fact the overall layout of boards is great, and I wouldn't change it at all. Just allow user moderation, a little disclaimer at the top, and you're flying! I think. Put a link at the bottom for x number of replies beneath your current threshold, and if clicked on you can see the lot.

Edit: You raise an interesting point about slashdot though, tens of thousands of scary scary people post on that every day; that disclaimer and moderation system are how they are allowed to continue doing so.

BoardTracker

Actually we are developing just such a mod for boards.. the beta version (for phpbb at the moment but will be for vb and others soon) is already running and you can read more about it here..

http://www.unofficialblue.com/viewtopic.php?t=3534

Still lots of features we want to add before its released but its working well so far.

ecksor

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Well yeah, I didn't say it was. I don't know if common carrier status or its equivalent even exists over here. If it does, however, allowing user moderation puts boards in that category. It seems to work for them is all...

I used to work for a common carrier in Ireland, but boards still doesn't fall under that definition and it still wouldn't if we allowed user moderation.

SimpleSam06

BoardTracker wrote:

Actually we are developing just such a mod for boards.. the beta version (for phpbb at the moment but will be for vb and others soon) is already running and you can read more about it here..

http://www.unofficialblue.com/viewtopic.php?t=3534

Still lots of features we want to add before its released but its working well so far.

Yes, thats more or less what I am talking about. Thats for modding down topics however, not individual posts...

BoardTracker

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Yes, thats more or less what I am talking about. Thats for modding down topics however, not individual posts...

It will actually also be for modding posts, not just topics. That part is partially done but just not yet visible for users.

SimpleSam06

ecksor wrote:

I used to work for a common carrier in Ireland, but boards still doesn't fall under that definition and it still wouldn't if we allowed user moderation.

I do feel it would afford a good degree of protection however; it would push the situation into one of intellectual property rights, who owns what content. The internet is a new way of doing things, and the laws still have to catch up with it, but theres no harm in availing of what protections are on offer for third party content.

ecksor

Is that your legal opinion?

Actually, don't answer that.

SimpleSam06

ecksor wrote:

Is that your legal opinion?

Actually, don't answer that.

Just trying to be of assistance in my own little way...

Edit: I think what I am trying to say here is you can't claim "no responsibility" if there is top down moderation. With user based moderation alone, you can. By further stating that intellectual property rights vest in the creators of the content, that changes the playing field considerably. NB sorry edited this after ecksor replied...

ecksor

I appreciate the sentiment, but I really think you don't appreciate how different the Irish law is. I'm not saying it is better or worse btw, just different.

On a more practical note, I quite like how boards is organised. It presents a million headaches and problems and rows and bull and it could be improved in many many ways, but it just wouldn't be the same without our current mod structure.

SimpleSam06

ecksor wrote:

I appreciate the sentiment, but I really think you don't appreciate how different the Irish law is. I'm not saying it is better or worse btw, just different.

On a more practical note, I quite like how boards is organised. It presents a million headaches and problems and rows and bull and it could be improved in many many ways, but it just wouldn't be the same without our current mod structure.

Very true!