(More) Growing Pains at the Daily Paul...Or, A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy
Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Tue, 10/30/2007 - 13:36Dear Friends,
The Daily Paul is growing fast! Several weeks ago, the site ran into some technical difficulties: the amount of traffic was simply overwhelming the servers. Thanks to the expertise our friend John, this turned out to be a relatively minor speed bump along the way - we moved the site to a new server.
The new issue we are either facing, or about to face, is a social issue. This site is now drawing in excess of 30,000 visitors per day, and has close to 4,000 registered users. The potential problem is that anyone who is a registered user can post comments on any story, as well as start new topics in the Forum. I set it up this way because I found that as the site grew, the major bottleneck in the dissemination of information about the campaign was me. In the beginning, when there wasn't much info, I could cover everything in my blog in about an hour!
Soon there was so much information coming from so many different angles that I invited other bloggers to post as well. For a variety of reasons, these postings remained relatively few. Since there is no way one person can manage all of the information out there, I simply opened it up to everyone. I made that decision with some trepidation, but to the credit of you wonderful Ron Paul supporters, this has worked out really great. Give yourselves a big round of applause! You are bright, intelligent, thoughtful, and generally have good spelling and grammar. 99% of the comments/posts have not been a problem.
What started out as my little blog has morphed into a real community for the exchange of ideas.
But as the election comes closer, we may run into the larger issue of spammers, plants, trolls and turncoats. In thinking about this issue, I pulled up a great article by Clay Shirky called A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. I hadn't read it for a few years, so it was a real refresher and eye opener. It is extremely interesting, but might be a little long for some people. As such, I am excerpting this short, very entertaining vignette to illustrate what the DP is facing:
In the Seventies, a BBS [electronic bulletin board system] called Communitree launched, one of the very early dial-up BBSes. This was launched when people didn't own computers -- institutions owned computers.
Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue. "Communitree" -- the name just says "California in the Seventies." And the notion was, effectively, throw off structure and new and beautiful patterns will arise.
And, indeed, as anyone who has put discussion software into groups that were previously disconnected has seen, that does happen. Incredible things happen. The early days of Echo, the early days of usenet, the early days of Lucasfilms Habitat, over and over again, you see all this incredible upwelling of people who suddenly are connected in ways they weren't before.
And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that got hold of some modems was a high school. And who, in 1978, was hanging out in the room with the computer and the modems in it, but the boys of that high school. And the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in salacious talk. They were interested in running amok and posting four-letter words and nyah-nyah-nyah, all over the bulletin board.
And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. [emphasis mine] The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying "No, that's not the kind of free speech we meant."
But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn't have, and as a result, they simply shut the site down.
Now you could ask whether or not the founders' inability to defend themselves from this onslaught, from being overrun, was a technical or a social problem. Did the software not allow the problem to be solved? Or was it the social configuration of the group that founded it, where they simply couldn't stomach the idea of adding censorship to protect their system. But in a way, it doesn't matter, because technical and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no way to completely separate them.
What matters is, a group designed this and then was unable, in the context they'd set up, partly a technical and partly a social context, to save it from this attack from within. And attack from within is what matters. Communitree wasn't shut down by people trying to crash or syn-flood the server. It was shut down by people logging in and posting, which is what the system was designed to allow. [emphasis mine]
The technological pattern of normal use and attack were identical at the machine level, so there was no way to specify technologically what should and shouldn't happen. Some of the users wanted the system to continue to exist and to provide a forum for discussion. And other of the users, the high school boys, either didn't care or were actively inimical. And the system provided no way for the former group to defend itself from the latter.
If you read Shirky's entire article, you will discover that all such communities eventually reach this point - whether in the online world or in the physical world. We're too big, so either the system breaks down, or it requires some new rules. Another way of putting it is that we need a sort of government, and a Constitution! Ironic in a way, isn't it?
Up until this point, I've been very reluctant to ban users and/or delete comments and posts unless they are very clearly disruptive. I have done it and I will continue to do it. This is not "censorship" as some have claimed when I kicked them out. They are free to speak their mind, in the physical world and online - just not here.
I appreciate everyone's help in pointing out the disruptive members. Please continue emailing me with the alerts!
I've run other forums in the past, and have seen how quickly disruptive users can take the whole thing down! I don't want that to happen with the DP. To this end, I need your help in establishing some clear cut rules. I don't want to be an arbitrary dictator.
I would appreciate your input as to (in no particular order):
Social Issues
- what kind of communication is acceptable, and what kind is not?
- what kind of communication should always be deleted?
- are issues tangential to the campaign acceptable topics of discussion, or should we only talk about Ron Paul and the campaign?
- under what circumstances should a user be banned?
Technical Issues
- have you seen certain technologies on other sites that you'd like to see implemented here? e.g. the ability to rate comments; the ability to rate users, etc. If so, can you provide me a link to the site?
This is just the beginning of a brainstorming session. I appreciate your help and any other general comments about the site you might have.
Thank you all!
Michael Nystrom
Editor
www.dailypaul.com
I've deleted my own comment.
fight4liberty
Example: Slashdot
One example you might want to consider is that of Slashdot. They are one of the oldest forum sites on the web, and they have a pretty good system of moderation. They allow users to moderate other polls on a rotating basis. You only get 5 moderator points at a time (to bump a post up or down), so you use them with care. Users who post or visit the site regularly get their moderator points more often (once every few days or per week) while those who are newer or have less involvement generally get fewer. You are also not allowed to post in a subject once you have used your moderator points there so that you do not moderate your own posts or those in your discussions. Categories of moderation include +1 insightful, +1 informative, +1 funny, -1 troll, -1 overrated, and +1 underrated.
They also have a meta-moderation feature where you moderate the moderations (was the moderation of the post fair?) which further affects how often a user will get moderator points. If they moderate well, they will get their points refreshed more quickly and vice versa.
Another nice feature of Slashdot is the tree view of the forum allowing for a better conversational structure (responses to responses).
You can set the option to view only comments greater than a certain level (the maximum positive moderation is +5) or to view the latest posts.
For this site, you could have a moderation system on the forum topics themselves. The front page could display subjects sorted by moderation then by newest so only recent, highly moderated subjects stay on the homepage. The ideas I mentioned may be more than you were looking for, but hopefully they will help.
Also, I am a computer programmer, so depending on the language and platform of the website, I might be able to assist in the development effort as well.
Slash is also Open Source (free is good!)
Here's the link to find out all about "Slash" (the code that runs Slashdot, et.al.)
http://www.slashcode.com/
Slash v2.52 download link:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4421&r...
Not simple, but it is very complete and time-tested.
Searching for Perfection
is not wise. Searching for a perfect system of governance over imperfect people will in its ultimate conclusion promote the exclusion of every participant if perfection is the only admitted standard. This question of "people management" on this website is a question of governance. In the privately owned and operated environment of this forum it remains governance of if not people than their only substantive contribution which are their ideas and opinions. There will be no perfect system to accomplish what it is presumed we all wish to accomplish.
I don't think it is practical for any manager to pore through comments and then decide if they stay or go. Nor is it desirable for participants to assume the role of police amongst ourselves or deputies which single out that which they find undesirable for further review with a view to possible removal (censorship).This is a clumsy and bureaucratic system of control reminiscent of the KGB. Merely a method of arbitrarily judging which statements are to live and which are to die. It is censorship no matter if it is in the private or in the governmental domain.
There is a principle of free speech out there and for good reason it is called free. It is by this free exchange that those who are in need of clarification and correction and better understanding can gain from others who see clearly the wrongheadedness of a thought. Should the wise ignore the ideas of the foolish? How then will the foolish ever be anything but fools?
The other undesirable factor is intentional vandalism, trolls or trouble makers etc.
The road of tyranny is smoothly paved for the majority to stroll along in ease but leads to a mausoleum for every spirit.
The path of freedom is rough and cluttered with many insignificant stones of vandalism but leads to an elevated spirit.
It is a question of reading the heart. Of determining which are sincere and which are not sincere. The best system does not even need to attempt such a godly feat. It won't be perfect but it will define an environment which dissuades the insincere comment without barring the sincere but foolish comment.
Trolls can pay the $10 and then you have a troll in a system with no safeguards. Banning either people or comments is anathema to freedom forever denying a reprobate the very environment within which maturity and good will can by association prevail.
We need an imperfect but acceptable system which bars none from living among we the perfect.
_______________________________
..Without the truth we have nothing
Searching for perfection is
Searching for perfection is not wise? Personally, I STRIVE for perfection, that being virtue & success. Your comment is right though; but perfection is not a prerequisite here, nor would it ever be - so I fail to see how this would be relevant when implementing a system..
Excerpt from below: (I seem to be repeating myself; I'm not sure if this is my fault (too long winded posts), or others)
There is no disadvantage with rating [report system] the user directly, if it is automated, which it would/should be. As I mentioned in my post below, and outlined - directly about this situation. You saying: "This can open the door to either a troller or a well meaning, but mistaken, member to falsely accuse someone." - your point being if one person reports a person wrongfully, it has essentially failed... that is why COLLECTIVELY, it can't go wrong - there would actually be no need for Michael to receive evidence of the offending post etc. they just creates a whole lot of extra work he doesn't need. He doesn't need to police us. We can police ourselves! As I've said before, we are all smart and intelligent people here - one or two will and may get it wrong, but all together we won't. - It is essentially a trial by your peers. A trial by jury! That is justice right there...
Judgment of your peers is the closet you can get to a perfect system is it not.. the reason it has been an integral part of law, order and the judiciary for so many centuries, if not thousands of years? This is what you get when you implement a report system, the one i have been advocating anyway - and I'm yet to see anyone voice otherwise. I consider myself fairly philosophical, and if you persuade me by logic, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong and change my views accordingly.
Collectively it can't go
Collectively it can't go wrong? I think it has in many instances here already on the Daily Paul. I have seen people perhaps inexperienced with posting who post something and ten people cry Troll. Then after a few days everything is forgotten and the new person finds their way to make well received and substantive comments.
Collectively it can and does go wrong. Therefore I would suggest a third element. One of consistent consensus over a period of several days. We suffer more from those who would do harm but then we do not wind up banning well intentioned people. It is like an additional check or balance to make sure we get it right before we ban someone.
Its the bandwagon effect among those who wish to confirm a sense of belonging to gang up on an intruder. very primal and this can destroy the opportunity to include and make very valuable associations. Give them a couple days to see what their intention really is.
maybe they will simply get bored and go away. Maybe they will learn much here and go on to establish a very valuable website of their own some day.
Maybe they really are determined to undermine and that will be confirmed soon enough. We have to be willing to be buffeted by the malicious FOR SOME DURATION or we will most assuredly immediately embrace the chains from which we declare our freedom. every day is a new day and no judgment should be made before a new day has dawned. A malicious person will resume his malicious ways. A person whose stars are not aligned to ours will be given the chance to be seen for who they intend to be.
_______________________________
..Without the truth we have nothing
There..
Is evidence yes, that it can go wrong. Yes, my remark was essentially too generalized. But there are always going to be a few exceptions to the rule. Much like the judicial system - innocent people being convicted, even innocent people being sentenced to death row. That being the fault of evidence or whatnot. Yet, they remain - just that - a FEW exceptions.
So overwhelming, I believe we get it right. And thats why its better than any other system on the table. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/4737?page=4 being an example. LaCole & Jane [?] got called a troll, in this thread, yet people were able to jump to their defence. It was viewed as negative to start with, but can definitely be classed, imo, as what happens when collectively people with an informed viewpoint realised that it was a constructive criticism article and some of the most educational info, learning came out of that thread.
I think you tend to take the negative approach. Can you provide an example, of the person you are talking about in your first paragraph? Because I've been around here a bit, and no one comes to mind. Furthermore, when the trolls do come - and it DOES become blatantly obvious (ronpaul4life) even admitted it.. plus there is criteria that can be added / rules, that could be proposed. And which have been - the (FUD), if you get someone, continuously posting, threads that (spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt... then eventually all the reports add up, and as i have indicated previously - it would be secretive (no. of reports not shown) like a secret ballot.... plus there would be a threshold no. [10 reports; a day ban] [20 reports; a week] [40; ip ban] or whateva you want to set them at.
As for your third element suggestion; - sure. But this is essentially ironing out 'the devil in the detail'. The overall general proposed measure remains the best suggested so far, imo.
"Maybe they really are determined to undermine and that will be confirmed soon enough. We have to be willing to be buffeted by the malicious FOR SOME DURATION or we will most assuredly immediately embrace the chains from which we declare our freedom."
Maybe?! 'Ronpaul4life' - who was here, early this week - was online being a pain on the boards, for 8 hrs straight! - he swayed no one, and he knows it. Yet he persisted - thats determination. There were more frequents in the coming days, yet its gone quiet again, thankfully. Hopefully they did get the point. "FOR SOME DURATION or we will most assuredly immediately embrace the chains for which we declare our freedom.." - as I still think, this system would not punish those who are in the right, only those who are breaking the (FUD - being trolls) no ones freedoms will be restricted, except those that deserve to be..
"But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.” ~ Edmund Burke
This is also helped out by the fact, that the report button wouldn't be easily clickable. Lessening the abuse factor, - so little discrepancies, those that pose little doubt about the poster will be registered - but when there is BIG doubt, people will bother to click the username, then click on the report button (or you could make another step in there, to increase the effort factor).. someones only going to REALLY bother if they KNOW for a fact they are a troll / the person is being totally unreasonable / consistently breaking the FUD etc..
Pardon my...
...bump conza88 :o)
fight4liberty
Lol :d
Thanks for the bumps. Oddly [this is a bump aswell - trying to bump about 10 posts at the same time, to get a bad one off the front page] - we really do need a system sooner rather than later...
I didn't want to touch that comment
I didn't want to touch that comment; I'm glad you did.
I don't see anything wrong with limiting the scope of discussion, creating rules, and moderating posts.
This is a private website, focusing on the Ron Paul campaign, not some general catch-all site. There is a multi-verse on the Web, dealing with every issue in the known universe. There is no need to expand Dailypaul.com to encompass the discussion of anything and everything.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
Looking For Solutions.
Probably 50% or more of our meetup is populated with I.T. types. I will bring up the issue at our meeting tonight and see what kind of solutions we can come up with for Dailypaul. Maybe someone will volunteer. 8-)
I know there are loads of Ron Paul supporters that work in the Information Technology Industry too. Surely someone can bring real solutions to the table that will be acceptable to Manystrom and the Dailypaul community.
I know that all of us here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area enjoy the Dailypaul.com. I love the site right now, but maybe It is time to grow up a bit.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
A donation required as membership fee
That works great. Everyone has read privileges but you have to enter a valid donation number from the site, or donate through this site. I think this is a rocking idea.
Do whatever you think is necessary to keep the campaign rolling. I'm wondering if some joker might think it's worth 10$ to wreak havoc, and if that's the case, then what'll you do? Kick them off even after paying?
Personally it would go
Personally it would go against everything I believe in to contribute to a campaign of someone who I disagree with... so that $10 would keep me from even signing up.
I know there will be some people who feel it's worth the $, but heck if we got $10 from every anti-ron spammer out there, he'd have that much more $ to advertise to open minded folks. And you can laugh at them for bashing him after they contributed to his campaign :)
Crazy idea... what if we
Crazy idea... what if we require members that wish to post to donate $10 to Ron Paul's campaign. I'm not 100% sure it's illegal, and it would unfortunately disqualify any foriegners, but you could funnel those to a PAC from what I understand.
So if someone wants to voice a dissenting view, they would have to have made a $10 donation to a campaign that they don't support.
Not bad, or donate $10 to
Not bad, or donate $10 to this website as a required membership with the understanding some lesser amount ($7?) would be forwarded to the RP campaign. That would be in accord with free enterprise at its best ; )
_______________________________
..Without the truth we have nothing
PLUS...
paying the fee online would require using your real name!
:-)
Witness the POWER of an IDEA - the MASSIVE Ron Paul Rallies! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgsg7a-Ok8Q
I don't think "real names" are the problem.
http://www.governmentsecurity.org/articles/THECOMINGJURISDIC...
It's now on page 2, but this essay came to mind instantly when I first read the post. The solution to security, whether here or in airports, doesn't start or stop with identity, because identity is only a small part of reputation, and reputation's what's really important. At least, to me.
JMR
that would be perfect
I agree, a membership fee with a portion going to RP's campaign.
Or if there is some issue re donating to the official campaign, it would be fine with me if all of the $ went to sustaining this forum.
Witness the POWER of an IDEA - the MASSIVE Ron Paul Rallies! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgsg7a-Ok8Q
Censorship and banning are
Censorship and banning are contrary to the ideology of this libertarian campaign. I suggested time rationing (Limit new topics for each member to one new topic / 12 hours or whatever seems best). I suggested quantity rationing (Limit comments / thread to three for each member or whatever seems best). These promote carefully considered contributions and courtesy for others.
If we resort so effortlessly to censorship and/or banning concerning such a simple problem as a website how are we going to learn to govern ourselves in a free society of free responsible people? The challenge however small or broad begins today for all freedom lovers to love freedom, lumps and all.
Otherwise we carelessly stroll down Hypocrisy Lane for all to observe from a distance and ponder our ultimate fate. Let's not so soon march back toward the mechanisms of tyranny. Tyranny does after all promise many conveniences to the majority does it not?
That's how we got into this mess. One little step at a time.
_______________________________
..Without the truth we have nothing
We're not censoring...
"But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.” ~ Edmund Burke
Meaning, there is no vice in EXTREME forms of liberty (freedom of speech) that has no restraint or is without tuition (TROLLING).. and thus such comments can be moderated accordingly.
This problem appears simple on the surface, but once you get below the water its deeply complex. The loops holes, the flows that would allow trolls to pass through, can render a hole system useless. I also think your ideas do more to limit / censor ideas, opinions and thus speech (limiting posts) more than a reporting system would. See, in a reporting system, all comments can be made etc. But once they have been deemed inappropriate, breaking the (FUD) rules, they are removed - the other ideas, opinions etc, go unhindered, they remain, free.
Your point is valid though, definitely, but I think it has been acknowledged and we are all mostly aware that is what we should avoid. And WILL avoid. No way are we going to go near what Red State did. They banned a WHOLE group of people, so I think the premise is flawed in a little respect.
A bump...
...is a bump, is a bump.
fight4liberty
it's not censorship at all, I think
True censorship is when the government dosen't allow something. Banning someone from a private website isn't censorship that's contrary to Dr. Paul's message ain the least, as the DailyPaul is private property. What is actually contrary to Paul's campaign is thinking that the constitution applies to private associations and not to the federal government. We're not strolling down "hypocrisy" lane; you're scrolling down "i can't make a distinction between a government action and a private action" lane". Anyway, hope I worded this well, without sounding like a jerk. I love you man! Ron Paul 2008!
The contribution idea is great. I've had friends who started blogs, and then watched then get 50,000 visitors a day. Eventually he did a $5 fee for posting with an account, and 90% of his problems went away. All proceeds go to Ron Paul!
The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt
Blessed
I have truly been blessed to have found a home on this site among those who if I knew in real life would most definitely call friends. Back in March, when I got excited about Ron Paul, I began to seek a place that I could share ideas and concerns in a rational manner. I thought I had found that site in RedSate. Little did I know what was too come. As Paul's campaign picked up steam, so did RedState's censorship. Eventually I was kicked out of RedSate three times before I found my home on here. It should have only taken the first time to realize what a waste of bandwidth they are. However, I do not wish to see those with different opinions get banned as it would not seem fair nor "free speechish".
To me, simply offensive (even disguised offensive) comments should render automatic banning.
Clearly violent or mean spirited comments should be spendable offense for a period of time with possible banishment. To me, mean spirited comments just mean you are not on the proper intellectual level to have a meaningful conversation if you are to retort to the use of violent or mean spirited language that is direct towards an individual or an idea/concept.
As to the future...
This is a Revolution and a peaceful one at that. The site will have to find ways to evolve accordingly as there are many more battles to be fought on many different front lines... We may win this battle but it for sure will not constitute the end to this Revolution by any means for many more battles will have to be fought and this site should help serve as a front line for communication in those efforts.
The only thought I would suggest for the Future is a possible dividing of "sub" categories or blog sections for specific states or regions so that those tuning in can here and see about what is exactly going on in their home state for the future political battles to come. After all, President Paul is gonna need a congress he can work with too.
I would also like to take this time to encourage all to stay in the Republican party after these primaries for one simple reason:
A quote from SLC Punk
"You can do a lot more damage from inside the system than you can from outside of it"
This movement would die if we all just divided back up into our Constitution Party, Libertarian Party or what-have -yous. United we stand, divided we fall.
"The only thought I would
"The only thought I would suggest for the Future is a possible dividing of "sub" categories or blog sections for specific states or regions so that those tuning in can here and see about what is exactly going on in their home state for the future political battles to come. After all, President Paul is gonna need a congress he can work with too."
This is a great idea.
Another idea.
Well, kind of adds to the self-policing fact. Just throwing this out there, the conception is not totally complete, and other systems would drown out the need for this, such as a report system - which would remove all threads started by the troll, and remove their bumping ability for all posts.. like the comment can be posted, but it doesn't bump.
Anyways, if that wasn't implemented. I think a side element, and this has many flaws in it, if left on its own - the poster can specify whether they want their post, or reply to [ a troll's post / negative title etc. ], to be bumped or not. Simple conception I think, check box at the bottom.. and you click it to make the post, 'non bump able' - for the use of a bad term.
And eh.. this is more of a bump to see if there are any more ideas out there.. also progress report? cheers
I'll bump...
...your bump.
fight4liberty
Recent posts, suspicions, and solutions
Hey all,
So I had forgotten about this thread when I recently posted a "Who are all of these people?" topic a few minutes ago.
I think the solution is to use "libertarian" distributed solutions, like those that have been outlined, but the stop-gap for the short term, I think, should be to remove the "active forum topics" from the front page. Let people who are the real junkies dig deep into the forums, and that way, negative, suspicious, or alarmist posts will not continue to be brought to the forefront causing the self sustaining mob-problem that they are now.
The posts that have the MOST value, so far, to me, have been the ones posted by regular bloggers on the site. If Michael, et al, feels that a forum topic with a very interesting news tidbit should be front page material, they can post it or make a digest of all of the "daily Ron Paul news" (hence the name of the site) that has come up in the forums that is REAL news and not this weird crap. This will also eliminate the spamming of irrelevant polls.
I trust the judgment of the mods and bloggers on what makes sense and what doesn't. I know, sounds like a gov't solution, but at least it's local =P
-Jayson
Topics in ALL CAPS
Also, as an aside, I would have absolutely no problem deleting any post that is in ALL CAPS or has forty-five punctuation marks. That would cut down a LOT.
LOL @ 45 ^%$#@^& marks
agreed
___ _____ _____ _____ ______ ______ _____ ___
"The time is near at hand which we must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
First President of the USA.
≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy
Why so much support for censorship?
I've tried reading most of the posts on this forum (3 pages worth is a lot of reading) and I'm becoming more and more concerned with the growing consensus that we need to start banning posts and/or posters. Isn't this exactly what we admonished Red State for doing just 3 days ago?? Can anyone see how hypocritical this would make us? Banning posters is very un-libertarian, and as a supporter of the most libertarian candidate in half a century, I would have thought most of us would frown on this type of remedy. Not to mention how much work you’re asking of Mike to spend all day deciding who to ban or who to give warnings. Certainly there are better solutions than banning posters and posts. I give some examples in my post below (Post entitled “my $0.02”).
My thanks to conza88 (Post entitled “My thoughts – here goes”) below for mentioning my recommendations in your post. I am confused by what you say about my recommendations, though. You say that you agree with my idea of rating posters rather than posts, but then disagree with highlighting the posts of higher rated posters. What is the point of giving posters higher ratings if they are not singled out in some way? A simple boldfacing of their screen-name could accomplish this.
I think it is important, if a rating system is used, that we rate posters not on whether we agree with them, but rather on the informative nature of their posts. That is my biggest fear in going to a rating system. Many posters, such as myself, find it a waste of time to just parrot some other poster. We post to provide an opposing point of view. Often times, we do this not to be difficult or inflammatory, but to (hopefully) open the mind of the reader to alternative viewpoints that may have never been considered on a particular issue. Also, it is frequently important to be a devil’s advocate on viewpoints of Dr. Paul’s that are certain to be attacked by other candidates at some point during the campaign. It is my fear that a rating system could bring negative ratings to important posters like this.
Lastly, I’ll repeat my request from below. Is there any way that posts can come with a time stamp, rather than just a date stamp? That doesn’t seem like it would be too hard to implement.
Thank you Mike for all your hard work.
I take my marching orders from the Constitution!