Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Communication; integrity or frivolity?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Communication; integrity or frivolity?

    What if there was no place on the internet where people with absolute integrity towards a purpose of using a BB to create change. Positive change like cultivating an ability to stop war and make peace, or stop the destruction of air and protect freedom.

    I am fairly certain that no such place exists on the web.

    I have come to see that mostly people like to see their topic at the top and will compulsively hammer their keyboard to keep it there. People want to express. This is not a need, this is yielding to a desire and doing so compulsively. There is no equity of expression and perception.

    I have conceived of a BB system that requires a poll response in order to post. The response would have dynamics such as; On topic? Relevancy? and currency of relevancy. The appropriateness of their poll response could initially be moderated some what with automation as their response compares to the majority. This is not a BB for idiots. This a BB for people who are trying to get something done.

    So far I like the performance of vbulletin, but can it be modified to do something like I describe?

  • #2
    Yep. It's called the moderation queue.

    Comment


    • #3
      Moderation que

      Is the moderation que something than can be done with vbulletin?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Christopher
        Is the moderation que something than can be done with vbulletin?
        Yes. It is a standard feature.
        It allows all posts to be moderated before they are made visible.
        This can be set on a per-forum basis.

        Comment


        • #5
          mod que

          That would require constant moderation. What I propose would require a response to a poll before posting whereupon the post would go to the board. This is quite different than requiring a moderators attention before sending to the board.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Christopher
            That would require constant moderation. What I propose would require a response to a poll before posting whereupon the post would go to the board. This is quite different than requiring a moderators attention before sending to the board.
            Then who do you propose responds to the pole? Regular users or moderators?
            What info would they have to go on to make their decision as to relevancy etc, the post in question?

            Comment


            • #7
              Mod Que?

              Originally posted by vBR
              Then who do you propose responds to the pole? Regular users or moderators?
              What info would they have to go on to make their decision as to relevancy etc, the post in question?
              In order to post regular users would have to respond to the poll. After that they could post.

              The info used would be the content of particular post they were replying to unless they were starting a thread.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Christopher
                I have come to see that mostly people like to see their topic at the top and will compulsively hammer their keyboard to keep it there.
                You can always ban people who bump their posts.


                I have conceived of a BB system that requires a poll response in order to post. The response would have dynamics such as; On topic? Relevancy? and currency of relevancy. The appropriateness of their poll response could initially be moderated some what with automation as their response compares to the majority.
                Who decides what's on topic? Who decides what's relevant? You said you don't want the board to be constantly moderated -- so I assume that you'll be relying on the user's assessments of their own posts to gauge their relevance? Good luck creating a program that will analyze posts for their relevance. The best algorithm would be easy to defeat.

                Boards are messy. But then, from your stated goals, it sounds like you're appealing to a pretty homogenous crowd. I bet you'll be able to lead your fold into whatever rules you set, even if you can't get the software to do what you want it to.
                iComix :: web comics

                Report Post | IP: Logged

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ultimate BB

                  Caution: This is complex but so far no one has showed how it will not work only how it could be defeated an in that case those who were working to defeat the function would have outnumber those making it work and in that case the moderator could step in.

                  The first of three poll options, for optimized performance seems best as, ON TOPIC?. When a person responds to that poll option they express whether or not the post is in the realm of the topic at all. The next is a rating of how relevant the the post to the order of the topic issues. In the beginning of a topic this sets the initial order of relevancy of issue, later it rate the posts for relevancy of posts in the issue.
                  Redundancy is the most congestive element of a topic. Posts that address preexisting issues of the topic which already have a poll majority standing indicating agreement, need to be attached to their area of agreement with a descending order as to their relevance in the issue they reply to.

                  In order to reply to a post in a topic issue thread it would be required to address the poll query in order to reply to that post, the posts importance/relevance to the issue as well as the post content regarding currency with the development of the issues as it relates to the topic would be a product of the poll; looking something like this three digit number;
                  143
                  1 = ON TOPIC ( only 1 YES or, 2 NO)
                  4= ISSUE RELEVANCE TO TOPIC(1, more important or essential, less up to 9)
                  3 = RELEVANCE IN CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OF ISSUE. (1 more, or less up to 9)

                  After a certain number of three digit reply poll responses on a single post that looked like this, 111, rather than this, 299, the post would be at the top of the posts in that issue for importance/relevance within the issue.

                  Posts within the topic would be initially sorted into common “issue” threads of the topic by the second digit, later that digit would define the posts relevance to the issue within the topic. Each topic would have nine issues. Topics only two layers. The topic itself and the second layer of issues within it. Off topic postings have no thread and fill out the bottom of the topic past the ninth issue. If a poster gets too many 2’s in the first digit position, the off topic posts they have made could be deleted or automatically relocated to an unmoderated/polled forum. Further they could be disabled from posting on the topic any longer.

                  The posts in an issue are ordered to current relevancy by the third digit and the newest post is always the second on the issue thread, while the most relevant post is first. This way a more relevant post to the issue can replace the first when its accumulation of low numbers by the poll response of subsequent reply exceeds with reply quantity while still dropping below the third digit sum total value of the top post. Postings would tend to be shorter, more focused and address the issues of the topic with far less redundancy. Posters would best describe their application of ratings in the polls to compel readers to in turn post in reply with low numbers in the second and third digits in their poll responses of their reply post.

                  When visiting the topic, the user sees up to ten different posts. The first of which is the original post creating the topic. The following nine are the relative importance of the addressed issues with a descending order establishing the users perceived importance/relativity of the issues to the topic.
                  If they decide the order of relevancy of issues in the topic is not correct, they go down to an issue thread in the topic they believe is more relevant to the topic, post in reply to its first post, and give the ON TOPIC? a number 1 in the first digit. If the content of the post addressing the order of importance/relevance issues to the topic is agreed upon a 1 or higher number is put in the second digit position and the development aspect. the third digit higher, then address with content why the higher number was used with regard to topic position and seek reply/poll in support.

                  That post now rests second in the issue thread. Again, by supporting the relevance to the topic of the top post on an issue the second post gathers, by virtue of its content asserting that the entire issue is rated too low in the topics order of issues, and gathering low numbers in the second and third digit positions of reply/poll enough times, the post moves to top post in the issue. If it remains there gathering a majority of number 1’s in the second and third digit positions by subsequent posts then the entire issue moves upward towards the number one issue of the topic. It is likely that this will happen quickly and opposition from higher rated issues will have to fairly justify their application of higher numbers in the second and third digit positions with posted content or risk very high numbers by those posting in reply to their posts and placing high numbers in the second and third digit positions. When issues ascend they should be fairly stable in a short time.

                  If issues in a topic move around too often then it is likely that the issues of the topic are actually sub topics in the forum and then could be listed immediately below the initiating topic in the forum. The main index would show the forums list, the forums the topics, the topics then the issues. Only by the issues becoming so controversial in a topic, could they by numeration of poll product, become sub topics in the forum. Of course the poll fields and accumulated total reply/poll responses with the totals for the second and third digit potions would have to be a part of the POST REPLY PAGE. It seems that the second layer of the issues and the database that crunches and orders the issues of the topic and the posts of the issues is really the only new aspect of software.

                  The proposal is imperfect and certainly complicated enough to justify a flow chart to eliminate confusion and refine function. The fiefdoms that tend to coalesce may still dominate occasionally, but that may make them legitimate by asserting that a majority does not necessarily need to make perfect sense but instead makes its point by showing it feels very strongly on certain issues and is capable of mounting notable opposition to a given, accepted logic. In many ways defining what maybe, a new forum.

                  At any rate it will take getting used to. Everyone will have to read better and create more relevant content. At some point an entire topic could be very much a done deal. Entering into a new status altogether as an archived topic or new forum with a fully distilled set of issues that would be very educational to any one new to the site. No more controversy, settled, gone. History. Until conditions in the world change, and they will eventually. With this kind of message board empowering responsibly and logically with technology, the changes will be for the best.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You're a bureaucrat, aren't you?
                    Don't tell me... Tax collector, right?
                    No?
                    Statistician?
                    Librarian?
                    Archivist?

                    Originally posted by Christopher
                    Caution: This is complex but so far no one has showed how it will not work only how it could be defeated an in that case those who were working to defeat the function would have outnumber those making it work and in that case the moderator could step in.

                    The first of three poll options, for optimized performance seems best as, ON TOPIC?. When a person responds to that poll option they express whether or not the post is in the realm of the topic at all. The next is a rating of how relevant the the post to the order of the topic issues. In the beginning of a topic this sets the initial order of relevancy of issue, later it rate the posts for relevancy of posts in the issue.
                    Redundancy is the most congestive element of a topic. Posts that address preexisting issues of the topic which already have a poll majority standing indicating agreement, need to be attached to their area of agreement with a descending order as to their relevance in the issue they reply to.

                    In order to reply to a post in a topic issue thread it would be required to address the poll query in order to reply to that post, the posts importance/relevance to the issue as well as the post content regarding currency with the development of the issues as it relates to the topic would be a product of the poll; looking something like this three digit number;
                    143
                    1 = ON TOPIC ( only 1 YES or, 2 NO)
                    4= ISSUE RELEVANCE TO TOPIC(1, more important or essential, less up to 9)
                    3 = RELEVANCE IN CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OF ISSUE. (1 more, or less up to 9)

                    After a certain number of three digit reply poll responses on a single post that looked like this, 111, rather than this, 299, the post would be at the top of the posts in that issue for importance/relevance within the issue.

                    Posts within the topic would be initially sorted into common “issue” threads of the topic by the second digit, later that digit would define the posts relevance to the issue within the topic. Each topic would have nine issues. Topics only two layers. The topic itself and the second layer of issues within it. Off topic postings have no thread and fill out the bottom of the topic past the ninth issue. If a poster gets too many 2’s in the first digit position, the off topic posts they have made could be deleted or automatically relocated to an unmoderated/polled forum. Further they could be disabled from posting on the topic any longer.

                    The posts in an issue are ordered to current relevancy by the third digit and the newest post is always the second on the issue thread, while the most relevant post is first. This way a more relevant post to the issue can replace the first when its accumulation of low numbers by the poll response of subsequent reply exceeds with reply quantity while still dropping below the third digit sum total value of the top post. Postings would tend to be shorter, more focused and address the issues of the topic with far less redundancy. Posters would best describe their application of ratings in the polls to compel readers to in turn post in reply with low numbers in the second and third digits in their poll responses of their reply post.

                    When visiting the topic, the user sees up to ten different posts. The first of which is the original post creating the topic. The following nine are the relative importance of the addressed issues with a descending order establishing the users perceived importance/relativity of the issues to the topic.
                    If they decide the order of relevancy of issues in the topic is not correct, they go down to an issue thread in the topic they believe is more relevant to the topic, post in reply to its first post, and give the ON TOPIC? a number 1 in the first digit. If the content of the post addressing the order of importance/relevance issues to the topic is agreed upon a 1 or higher number is put in the second digit position and the development aspect. the third digit higher, then address with content why the higher number was used with regard to topic position and seek reply/poll in support.

                    That post now rests second in the issue thread. Again, by supporting the relevance to the topic of the top post on an issue the second post gathers, by virtue of its content asserting that the entire issue is rated too low in the topics order of issues, and gathering low numbers in the second and third digit positions of reply/poll enough times, the post moves to top post in the issue. If it remains there gathering a majority of number 1’s in the second and third digit positions by subsequent posts then the entire issue moves upward towards the number one issue of the topic. It is likely that this will happen quickly and opposition from higher rated issues will have to fairly justify their application of higher numbers in the second and third digit positions with posted content or risk very high numbers by those posting in reply to their posts and placing high numbers in the second and third digit positions. When issues ascend they should be fairly stable in a short time.

                    If issues in a topic move around too often then it is likely that the issues of the topic are actually sub topics in the forum and then could be listed immediately below the initiating topic in the forum. The main index would show the forums list, the forums the topics, the topics then the issues. Only by the issues becoming so controversial in a topic, could they by numeration of poll product, become sub topics in the forum. Of course the poll fields and accumulated total reply/poll responses with the totals for the second and third digit potions would have to be a part of the POST REPLY PAGE. It seems that the second layer of the issues and the database that crunches and orders the issues of the topic and the posts of the issues is really the only new aspect of software.

                    The proposal is imperfect and certainly complicated enough to justify a flow chart to eliminate confusion and refine function. The fiefdoms that tend to coalesce may still dominate occasionally, but that may make them legitimate by asserting that a majority does not necessarily need to make perfect sense but instead makes its point by showing it feels very strongly on certain issues and is capable of mounting notable opposition to a given, accepted logic. In many ways defining what maybe, a new forum.

                    At any rate it will take getting used to. Everyone will have to read better and create more relevant content. At some point an entire topic could be very much a done deal. Entering into a new status altogether as an archived topic or new forum with a fully distilled set of issues that would be very educational to any one new to the site. No more controversy, settled, gone. History. Until conditions in the world change, and they will eventually. With this kind of message board empowering responsibly and logically with technology, the changes will be for the best.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by vBR
                      You're a bureaucrat, aren't you?
                      Don't tell me... Tax collector, right?
                      No?
                      Statistician?
                      Librarian?
                      Archivist?
                      How about Activist who understands bureaucracies and gets really pissed when his government uses taxes to be global gangsters 'cause the statiscal liklyhood of global warfare will never make it to the libraries that won't exist any longer?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Christopher
                        How about Activist who understands bureaucracies and gets really pissed when his government uses taxes to be global gangsters 'cause the statiscal liklyhood of global warfare will never make it to the libraries that won't exist any longer?
                        [dwarfism] Ah! So you're a waffle man? [/dwarfism]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by vBR
                          [dwarfism] Ah! So you're a waffle man? [/dwarfism]
                          You have genuinely lost me. Are we headed off topic?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think your concept is flawed and ignores the reality of how people communicate.

                            You want posts to be sorted by relevance. But who decides what's relevant? Anyone who posts thinks their post is relevant -- or else they wouldn't post. Or else they're a troll or a spammer, and those are easy to ban on the grounds that they're interfering with the communication between members of your community. If you order posts by even a moderator-defined level of relevance, you're asking for threads that can easily become disjointed and incomprehensible in places. For instance, if you take this post out of context from the rest of the thread, most people wouldn't read past the first sentence, as it depends on the context of the post before it to make its point understood. That, obviously, is how human conversation works, and relevance-sorting is bound to short-circuit the natural mode of comprehension.

                            No more controversy, settled, gone. History. Until conditions in the world change, and they will eventually. With this kind of message board empowering responsibly and logically with technology, the changes will be for the best.
                            That there seems to encapsulate what you really want -- a sort of "utopia" wherein every post is relevant, thoughtful, and preferably illuminating in some way. Human communication is not clean. It is messy. People will argue. People will go off on tangents that interest them. Instead of providing a forum through which people can communicate, it sounds like you're trying to change people in some grand social engineering experiment. If you want a real community with real people, you'll let them be who they are and interact the way they are comfortable doing. You'll find it actually works pretty well as it is -- no "improving" required.
                            iComix :: web comics

                            Report Post | IP: Logged

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bigmattyh
                              I think your concept is flawed and ignores the reality of how people communicate.
                              Actually in a face to face situation before you respond to what you have just heard you show them with your facial expression how you perceive what they have expressed. So in that sense the concept is exactly right on the reality of how people communicate. Most important is WHY they communicate.
                              Originally posted by bigmattyh
                              You want posts to be sorted by relevance. But who decides what's relevant? Anyone who posts thinks their post is relevant -- or else they wouldn't post.
                              The person replying to a post expresses their perception of the relevance in order to post in reply.
                              Originally posted by bigmattyh
                              Or else they're a troll or a spammer, and those are easy to ban on the grounds that they're interfering with the communication between members of your community. If you order posts by even a moderator-defined level of relevance, you're asking for threads that can easily become disjointed and incomprehensible in places. For instance, if you take this post out of context from the rest of the thread, most people wouldn't read past the first sentence, as it depends on the context of the post before it to make its point understood. That, obviously, is how human conversation works, and relevance-sorting is bound to short-circuit the natural mode of comprehension.
                              So far I translate what you are saying to match my concept.
                              Originally posted by bigmattyh
                              That there seems to encapsulate what you really want -- a sort of "utopia" wherein every post is relevant, thoughtful, and preferably illuminating in some way. Human communication is not clean. It is messy. People will argue. People will go off on tangents that interest them.
                              You are talking enabling peoples wants and desires I am talking about needs. BIG difference, do not confuse them.
                              Originally posted by bigmattyh
                              Instead of providing a forum through which people can communicate, it sounds like you're trying to change people in some grand social engineering experiment.
                              Yes. You are catching on. Please explain why peoples behaviors do not need to change in order to solve the serious problems that face our childrens futures.
                              Originally posted by bigmattyh
                              If you want a real community with real people, you'll let them be who they are and interact the way they are comfortable doing. You'll find it actually works pretty well as it is -- no "improving" required.
                              I sense that you suffer from not participating in meaningful communication to our collective human future very often. The internet does not promote this and I work to correct this deficiency. Do you? How do you do it with the sort of criticism I respond to right now?
                              Originally posted by bigmattyh
                              Human communication is not clean. It is messy. People will argue. People will go off on tangents that interest them. Instead of providing a forum through which people can communicate, it sounds like you're trying to change people in some grand social engineering experiment. If you want a real community with real people, you'll let them be who they are and interact the way they are comfortable doing. You'll find it actually works pretty well as it is -- no "improving" required.
                              As long as frivolity is the norm and integrity to our survival and evolution is put aside what you describe as “working pretty well” is in the realm of “comfort”. I am so sick of complacency there are no words to describe it. I am presenting a level of function that has not been seen on earth but is deeply needed.
                              I have responded to your criticism. Please be constructive to what I am trying to do.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X