Proposed SaidIt Policy Ideas For magnora7 To Consider - And For Your Feedback

submitted by JasonCarswell from self.IdeasForSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the ideas. We already give people 2 strikes, and those strikes are always public unless they're just new accounts clearly abusing the system. Levels of banishment would be nice, like a 24h ban and a week-long ban would be nice, but someone has to code this, and I think this idea is like number 75 on our to-do list that's almost 100 items long...

The public square idea is interesting, but I think reality it would just lead to very long protracted arguments about what belongs and what doesn't all the time, and I don't think that's beneficial for the website, nor do I have the time or energy to do so on a regular basis. You're basically asking me to spend my day getting in to fights with people about if they belong, in public, on a regular basis. Talk about emotionally draining... It's already taxing enough as it is.

Thanks for the thoughts though, I do appreciate people looking in to how saidit could improve.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm happy you've received these well, as intended.

I hadn't even considered putting a timer on the bans to automate the process - good idea, though I understand why coding it might not be a priority. I was only thinking more about a policy for a "time out". Further, it would also provide you an opportunity to actually apply punishment without it being permanent. Whether you choose to use it more frequently, to show how serious you are and that you mean it, or whether you choose to avoid it at all costs, is up to you. Having an open wiki record of it (or a private txt file or calendar reminder) could be easier than coding all that. Further - you could delegate the record keeping responsibilities to someone. (I don't volunteer for any of these, though I'm always open to do design work.)

What I think you missed about the public square is that you can let the people do their drama, and when they arrive at a conclusion, your trusted advisor(s) (of your choice) who have been following along can come to you with the verdict that's publicly and/or democratically reached among their peers. Ideally they resolve it among themselves. At worse it's Mad Max Thunderdome drama that's not much different than any other sub where opposing views are thrown about. The only time you'd need to step in is if someone were to slide way down the pyramid, which happens from time to time anyway, and your advisors will let you know - or if your advisors summarize and present the case to inform you that the people demand the axe. While the visage of an executioner is not pretty, IMO, it's less repulsive than being the judge, jury, and executioner. (Finding good advisors/referees might not be easy, or maybe it would.)

Ultimately the primary goal is to keep you free of the drama and let the people sort it out themselves - thus freeing up more of your time. Of course you can always lurk and/or step in at any time.

IMO, it's worth an experiment to see if it's viable. If it fails then that's too bad. If we don't try then we'll never know, and to me that's doubly too bad squared. At the very least we'd learn something and have a "Public Square" (or Tea Room, or whatever name you like), kinda like the chat but not.

Please reconsider and give it a test run. Or - before that giant leap, take a little step and ask people what they think about it. Maybe they'll like it. Or maybe it really is a lame idea. Or maybe they'll offer additional ideas and insights to make it better and convince you. We'll never know unless you ask. And you'll never know if it was a good way to free up your time.