How tight will moderation be?

[rebuilder]

I'm mainly interested in joining a different forum than bitcointalk due to the amount of chaff overwhelming any actual content there. It's the usual problem - as a forum grows, off-topic posts, bickering and "funny" memes tend to take over.

Generally speaking, this seems to be a variant of the litter problem: let trash remain unpicked in a public space, and you'll soon find more of it all over. If this forum grows, it will, IMO, happen here as well.

What's the moderation policy on low-quality and off-topic posting? Can self-moderation for threads be enabled?

[rogerver]

Can self-moderation for threads be enabled?

This seems like a very good question.

What do people want regarding this?

[Ledge]

Can self-moderation for threads be enabled?

This seems like a very good question.

What do people want regarding this?

I'm guessing self-moderation means that a user moderates his/her own threads? I don't think that's a good idea. It could easily be abused to remove all posts arguing against the OP in that thread, or something similar. Also you could remove all negative posts and keep the positive, which would give the impression that the OP is 100% right and everyone supports him/her.

Maybe a better way would be to have a group of moderators where you need a certain amount of votes from the moderators before a post is removed. That way you will not end up like BitcoinTalk where a few people completely control everything. If every moderator keeps track of what posts the other moderators report, we could single out a "corrupt" moderator. This would lead to semi-decentralized moderation and it could work as long as the mods don't create moderation pools which contains >50% of moderation-power

[LiteCoinGuy]

This seems like a very good question.

What do people want regarding this?

I'm guessing self-moderation means that a user moderates his/her own threads? I don't think that's a good idea. It could easily be abused to remove all posts arguing against the OP in that thread, or something similar. Also you could remove all negative posts and keep the positive, which would give the impression that the OP is 100% right and everyone supports him/her.

Maybe a better way would be to have a group of moderators where you need a certain amount of votes from the moderators before a post is removed. That way you will not end up like BitcoinTalk where a few people completely control everything. If every moderator keeps track of what posts the other moderators report, we could single out a "corrupt" moderator. This would lead to semi-decentralized moderation and it could work as long as the mods don't create moderation pools which contains >50% of moderation-power

other idea:

when one corrupt Mod wants to delet a post, at least 3 other members (no newbies) of this forum have to agree on that.
makes it harder for a corrupt mod (but no impossible of course).

[bitkilo]

other idea:

when one corrupt Mod wants to delet a post, at least 3 other members (no newbies) of this forum have to agree on that.
makes it harder for a corrupt mod (but no impossible of course).

This could be a good idea but i can see that it would probably be very time consuming waiting for other members to log on and agree.

Moderation is not a job that I will be taking lightly.
It takes a lot of time and is not easy but just stick to the basics.

If the post is on topic and relevant to the conversation then there is no reason to delete it, if it's off-topic then I will either decide to move the post or delete if it is just spam and belongs nowhere else.

Banning a user is another topic, it would be good to get another admin/mods opinion before doing so.

[Ishotas]

I think users can first be warned by mods to keep on-topic and avoid ad hominems before anything else, repeated offenders can be punished and naturally obvious spam posts can be removed. However freedom of speech should be respected and just because someone's views differs from yours, it shouldn't be discarded as trash. As for memes, when not overdone they can add entertainment value to the discussion. We are not exactly discussing any sacred subjects here

It is a fine line between moderation and dictatorship. If this turns into yet another heavily censored forum in which one has to walk on eggshells, I see no reason to stay.

[rogerver]

If this turns into yet another heavily censored forum in which one has to walk on eggshells,

100% for sure, this will NOT happen. Short of obvious spam and ad hominem attacks, people can say what they want.

Unlike the other Bitcoin media platforms, on Bitcoin.com:
Block size debate = go for it!
BitcoinXT = No problem!
Censorship discussion = Please discuss!

[Ishotas]

100% for sure, this will NOT happen. Short of obvious spam and ad hominem attacks, people can say what they want.

Good to know, thank you Roger

[Ishotas]

From 2:13 to 3:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8RrX8dxkXY

[QS-]

Can self-moderation for threads be enabled?

This seems like a very good question.

What do people want regarding this?

As a concept, self moderation is a great feature as it allows the OP of threads to create and enforce their own rules regarding their threads and to effectively keep their threads on topic. It also prevents people from trolling their threads.

On the other-hand, self moderated threads are often used by scammers in order to silence people who are attempting to warn others about their scam.

I would say that overall self moderated threads are probably more bad then they are good. However if the decision were to be made to allow for self moderated threads then there should be some level of prerequisites that must be obtained prior to being able to create a self moderated thread (maybe having to have a certain number of posts, or have your account be a certain age).