Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.
Meta: A new kind of forum leveraging Web 2.0 technologies
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But it's ok, it doesn't matter how fast you develop your forum, but it matters how fast you fix your bugs and fix broken features that are implemented even if they don't work.
In regards to a "spammer with 2000 posts" being able to come on and wreak havoc, well that just wouldn't happen. The exact POINT of the NRi system is to protect against that -- a spammer with 2000 posts would have an abyssmally low NRi. The NRi is based on several different measures, of which post count plays a tiny role. The level to which other people moderate your posts is much more influential in the calculation, so a spammer would be instantly negatively moderated into oblivion.
If I understood you right, I could still abuse the system with my moderation power to moderate someones posts constantly, the NRi system seeing him as a "bad poster who needs constant moderation" to keep him on a tight leash and raise my moderation status by being a "good guy who keeps the spammer in check" is that possible?
I just don't trust that kind of automated feature, I like my communities being ran by people who have some kind of attachment to the actual community, a long time memebers recognized by the forum admins or people who have sponsored the community and continue to contribute in a meaningful way.
Your toughts about these?
It depends. The strength of the system comes from the fact that its based on the behaviors of many people, not just a single person. Very few individuals have any kind of really decisive moderating power, and thats the point. It protects against tyranny of the few, and instead reflects more on the general consensus on a large subset of the general population's feelings. The few people that do have somewhat more moderating power are not awarded that power trivially. They have to do a lot of things correctly over a good amount of time to get "elected" if you will, into a position of any palpable power.
I just don't trust that kind of automated feature, I like my communities being ran by people who have some kind of attachment to the actual community, a long time memebers recognized by the forum admins or people who have sponsored the community and continue to contribute in a meaningful way.
And I guess I've been involved in too many communities in which an egotistical power tripping admin or moderator felt it their god given right to go around silencing anyone who didn't kiss up to them.
community based, user driven feedback is quickly becoming the best way to run social sites like these. Take www.digg.com for example, or slashdot. Neither of those sites have dedicated "moderators" and they are doing just fine.
I fully admit that its quite a break away from the current modality of thinking in forums, and some admins probably wont like it. Thats fine, it's not for them then. Meta is definitely being built from the ground up from the user's perspective, not the admin's. Because ultimately it is the users in a community that generate value back into the community, not the admins. Admins and moderators only need to be there to keep trolls out, there's no reason you can't delegate that responsibility to the community itself, its a fairly trivial job.
Tell me about it, man. I hear you 100%. Thanks for stopping by and thank you even more for being civil. I've had people from "competing" projects come by here and flame - which is just ridiculous in my opinion. It's nice to see another developer with his head on straight. Best of luck with Meta
Again, the best person to take care of anything, is someone with somekind of attachment to it.
I guess in a way then, its the same in both cases. Someone in Meta is not going to have a high nri without being a highly active, strongly contributing, highly respected member of the forum... same goes for moderators who are appointed to the position as you say. They both have attachments to the community.
I guess the difference is that in meta, if a bunch of people don't like the way a single person is behaving, they can do something about it. In traditional forums, whatever the mod does is like the word of god, and most forums I go to do not even allow open discussion of moderator's actions. That shit just reeks of authoritarian top-down suppression.