it's time

[antron]

1. Plonking – we decided to first implement other features to enhance better interaction before employing plonking, however we will research plonking mods so it can be at the ready if/when the community decides they still want it.

i know that you (the technical team) have been treading gently with making changes to the eplaya. i understand some of the reasons -- working within limited resources, especially the volunteer labor that makes this place work.

philosophically, i agree with enhanced interaction as the place to start. but in my current experience the signal-to-noise ratio here on the eplaya has degraded so significantly that this treasured resource has become nearly unusable.

many may not want to plonk. i certainly respect their right not to. and they need not. but for many others, the ability to filter out noise will be used as a tool that will enable them to participate more fully here.

it would be a shame to wait any longer to implement the mod.

[precipitate]

+1

I also would respectfully ask that you trust people to implement a plonk
feature (be it for people or threads) in their own best interests. Most of
us are adults around here, and the rest, well, they may just be plonk
candidates. Make it possible for us to read all posts, so that if a plonkee
suddenly exits from fucktardcity we can find out. But don't force us to
wade through over and over and over again.

> it would be a shame to wait any longer to implement the mod.

Well, OK, but it's also important to fully test any mod and think about
unintended side-effects too.

[Kinetic II]

Screw it, no one listens to what I say anyway so why bother.
Post pulled.
Now is someone going to bitch about that?

[Eric]

I would love to plonk DeFacto.
It would save me the time it takes to scroll past his drivel.

make me +3 for this.
Or +4. Not sure where we stand.

[DE FACTO]

I would love to plonk DeFacto.
It would save me the time it takes to scroll past his drivel.

make me +3 for this.
Or +4. Not sure where we stand.

Don't worry. DE FACTO was just that. A burning DE FACTO.

There is a reason for my maddness.

[precipitate]

The convention is just +1 for you. Leave it up to the people reading the
responses to do the arithmetic.

[Kinetic II]

I pulled this post, and I'll explain why in private to those who asked.

[Niacin]

I can earnestly elucidate enabling plonk would exponentionally increase my enjoyment of the e-playa, ending exodus and enthropy.

[Don Muerto]

I rescind my vote after what I just saw...it finally makes sense.

Finally someone fucking "gets it".

I'm going to leave my original post as a matter of record. But I stand corrected and Tony you have my support.

What do you get? I don't get it at all.

[Kinetic II]

Post pulled...because I wanted to. Get over it. The scroll buttons are to your right.....

[Bob]

After some spreadsheet crunching on info displayed on the Index page:

Top five forums, by no. of posts -- Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:33 am
28,388 total posts
Burning Man 2003/Experiences -- 8392 posts (30%)
Yearround/General Discussion -- 8305 posts (29%)
Burning Man 2003/2003 Theme: Beyond Belief -- 3924 posts (14%)
Burning Man 2004/Newbie Information & Questions -- 2176 posts (8%)
Burning Man 2003/Rumors & Lies -- 942 posts (3%)

Top five forums, by no. of topics -- Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:33 am
2,255 total topics
Burning Man 2003/Did anyone find my... -- 451 topics (20%)
Burning Man 2003/I met you, then we... -- 448 topics (20%)
Burning Man 2003/Experiences -- 284 topics (13%)
Yearround/General Discussion -- 250 topics (11%)
Burning Man 2003/2003 Theme: Beyond Belief -- 131 topics (6%)

The no. of views per forum or topic might be a useful stat, but this isn't displayed on the index page and can't be retrieved without much digging around.

As a reality check re: plonking, I suggest searching on posts by a candidate plonkee in the above topic areas, and in topic areas of individual interest. Personally, I would weight the consequences of the candidate's plonkish posts by the degree to which a particular forum relates to Burning Man -- General Discussion would rank lowest on my list, btw.

[precipitate]

As a reality check re: plonking, I suggest searching on posts by a candidate plonkee in the above topic areas, and in topic areas of individual interest. Personally, I would weight the consequences of the candidate's plonkish posts by the degree to which a particular forum relates to Burning Man -- General Discussion would rank lowest on my list, btw.

Bob, I'm not sure I know what you mean. You mean before I, as a user,
plonk someone I should do an analysis on how much they're posting in
the areas that interest me?

We're not talking system-wide plonk or censure. We're talking individual
preferences.

[technopatra]

OK, I hear you guys. I was always personally in favor of plonking, as I think it will promote more respectful communication, but we wanted to tread lightly . I was also a little afraid that folks would plonk first and think later, but whatev, that's their perogative.

Bob, thank you for the usage report. Your suggestion about reviewing where folks are plonkable would be a good to include in the community guidelines.

I will push plonking back up to the top of the mods to find & test.

De Facto, you know I like you, too, but I cannot fathom any "reason" that might lie behind your madness. I think you might feel like you are the grain of sand that irritates the oyster into making a pearl, but I'm seeing and hearing, across the boards, that your posts more closesly resemble toxic dumping that is destroying the bay in which the oyster lives.

Kinetic, I have no idea where you stand in this thread. Your first couple of posts were both coherent and impassioned, but then you seem to retract soemthing (what?) and make references to conversations that obviously happened elsewhere, without any context. It's frustrating for me to try to decipher your meaning, because I really do want to understand what you are trying to express.

Precipitate - I absolutely, totally agree that it needs to be tested, and hope that you will want to try it out on staging with us. And thank you for the excellent us of "fucktardcity" and a smilie in the same sentence. It made me happy, I dunno why.

Niacin, Eric & Antron - thanks for adding your feedback.

Everyone, I must beg your patience as we do not have the plonking mod at the ready. It will be a while longer, but movement should pick up as soon as our staging environment is up (it's late, I'm sorry).

[Bob]

By what method are admins and/or the "eplaya task force" ranking the priority of proposed changes?

Are the negative effects of proposed changes (including those affecting access speed/server response) considered in the process? Or alternative solutions (including doing nothing)?

Is it being considered that some solutions may fail in the absence of active moderators to explain the existence and appropriate use of features such as plonking (aka "Ignore User" or whatever)? Or that the presence of active moderators may make the need for controversial solutions moot?

Is the desire for plonking related more to being a spectator, or a participant?

Does the value of promoting plonking outweigh the value of promoting tolerance?

Is there going to be a vetting process or live testing period for significant new features, outside the inner circle of those effecting changes?

[emily sparkle]

in the plonk mod, will i be able to un-plonk someone if i have previously plonked them?

just wondering...

[precipitate]

> in the plonk mod, will i be able to un-plonk someone if i have previously plonked them?

Absolutely. Antron proposed a mod that allows you to change stuff
immediately, through your user profile, and I believe that's the one the
team is considering.

In addition, I'd like to see a way to read a plonked person's posts without
having to unplonk first. Like, the plonkee's stuff shows up as a single line
in the display, and I can click on the name to expand, or something.

If I get a moment, I'll review the mod again and see if it handles this, and
if not check for others that do.

Technopatra, I'm definitely willing to test stuff. And if I can, I'll try to help
identify and review potentially helpful mods.

[III]

i've gone through a fair number of the mods, and i'm afraid there's a dearth of ones to do what *i* think is appropriate. that doesn't mean they're not out there, nor that what i think is appropriate actually is. it just means that i haven't seen anything i'd heartily recomend for inclusion. i spose i could try writing my own, but that just looks painfull.

[emily sparkle]

gotcha

[Eric]

Precipitate - I absolutely, totally agree that it needs to be tested, and hope that you will want to try it out on staging with us.

Technopatra- I read eplaya everyday (even though I don't respond that much- I try to make sure I have something to say) and am more than willing to be one of your beta-testers for any mods you want to try. I'm techno-competant but not a coding wiz, so I might have good basic level user opinions.

[SED]

I look forward to whatever method can be put in place to keep the boards from getting coopted by those who only spread dissent.

Anarchy is all fun and games, until someone gets an eye poked out.

I can understand why it might be a good idea to let offenders see who has plonked them, but it might be just as wise to let them see how many people have done that, just to give them a chance to change their ways.

[precipitate]

> just to give them a chance to change their ways.

I would hope that anyone plonk-worthy would have been told repeatedly
what was dissonant about their postings long before anyone plonks
them. In fact, I can say with a high degree of certainty that I won't plonk
anyone who hasn't shown themselves to be completely resistant to
guidance towards acceptable behavior. Letting them see stats on who's
plonked them is counter-productive. It provides a way for them to
empirically measure their toxicity. Let it be private. Let it be my own
private way to make a sane space here. Don't turn it into another
Wheee! Post 100! [sorry Zane] statistic counting endeavor.

[Guest]

> It provides a way for them to
empirically measure their toxicity. Let it be private. Let it be my own
private way to make a sane space here.

Very well put.

I also remember an idea to publish some plonk statistics, and i'd like to take a stand against that. Publicizing plonk statistics would just be some kind of shaming thing that wouldn't work. Shaming hurts, mean people are sufferring, shaming mean people tends to cause more hurt somewhere down the line.

[Bob]

What hurts me are all the fuckwits complaining about de facto's waste of bandwidth w/ posts that waste 50X his share of the bandwidth.

Go ahead and add the plonk feature. I still predict that you'll all find it impossible to shut up about it, and that it will drag the board down to the playground level.

[Bob]

a beer -- You may be misinterpreting my take on plonk stats. Pls use the search engine to find my prev posts.

[Guest]

Bob, i think you made an eloquent critique of adding a plonk feature, and i think we're in agreement on most points.
Your statement that ...

And as I previously discussed, I want to avoid having a plonk feature become a controversial issue with the potential to inflame users.

is right on. I've been scrolling past plonkable messages, and even though i do have some annoyance over needing to do that, i think you're right that a plonk button is not the best answer.
You wrote ...

If a difficult poster pops in, I'd prefer the record to show that they were either simply ignored, gently tweaked, or engaged successfully. Quite often, people who come off as difficult initially can be brought around into some sort of common understanding.

My argument, at heart, is that setting up a [plonk] button sends the wrong message about our expectations of this community and its norms. Common responsibility for the record we leave future readers would be a more valuable thing to push than petty, high-school shunning.

Right on Bob.

[Bob]

My only hope is that whoever is empowered to effect changes to the eplaya will think twice, and respect well-considered feedback and testing, before slapping it up here. To reiterate:

For plonking to be enabled, plonk software routines and plonk data must be stored on Burning Man's server.

The state of having been plonked by X number of users becomes a set of data.

As an implicit result, the state of not having been plonked also becomes data.

As does who-plonks-whom, who-never-plonks, etc.

Such data stored on the server may potentially be used by admins, moderators, or whomever has access, for undisclosed purposes.

Hence my questions re: disclosure by the admins regarding its potential use.

In what we may assume to be an ideal plonking scenario, no one would know whom anybody else is plonking.

However, many users have already been pretty specific in posts to the eplaya re: whom they intend to plonk, without apparent regard for negative consequences.

I would certainly welcome successful, working examples of a killfiling scenario in the context of a web-based bbs similar to the eplaya, in which the killfile data is stored semi-publicly on the server rather than privately on users' machines. (A "killfile" is a file or software routine which stores criteria used for filtering incoming email, Usenet news articles, listserv output, or bbs posts. "Killfiling" is the action of putting someone's nickname or email address, or some subject such as abortion or politics, etc., in a killfile.)

[Badger]

In what we may assume to be an ideal plonking scenario, no one would know whom anybody else is plonking.

That's how I've always envisoned it. Nothing public, no stats, no shaming, no popularity contest.

Just want something that I can click that erases/removes/blanks out all posts by cretinous, clue-deprived asswads (and there innumerable sock puppets) while I'm logged in here.

If you could figure out a way to remotely electrify their keyboards so they get a 40 amp shock each time they bang out their slavering drivel, that'd be a plus.

[technopatra]

<edited for dumb mistakes using the quote tag, no content has changed>

By what method are admins and/or the "eplaya task force" ranking the priority of proposed changes?

Well, first we are looking at mods, to see if they even exist. Then we would install and test on staging, and invite folks to play with it and see what they have to say. If we are sure it would work, and it's something controversial like plonking, then I was thinking we could post a poll and see how many folks really want it. I've mostly heard from folks who do, but silence doesn't always equal consent, so I want to see what others think. I know that we could do it the other way around, but I think it'll be more damaging to bait'n'switch - getting folks all excited about a mod that isn't going to happen.

Are the negative effects of proposed changes (including those affecting access speed/server response) considered in the process? Or alternative solutions (including doing nothing)?

Absolutely.

Is it being considered that some solutions may fail in the absence of active moderators to explain the existence and appropriate use of features such as plonking (aka "Ignore User" or whatever)? Or that the presence of active moderators may make the need for controversial solutions moot?

It's the other way around - we are trying to enable features that reduce the need for moderation. Having moderators is far more controversial than any mod - deciding how active they can be, what the criteria is for assigning moderator privileges/duties, following up and making sure the moderators are doing a good job, and fielding feedback from the community about them - it's more than we are equipped to handle.

We will announce the changes as they come, and give some guidance/guidelines for how one may wish to use it, and how it could be used by others. We will leave it to the user to decide what is appropriate use. For plonking, the worse case "abuse" scenario I see would be for someone to plonk someone that they might have been able to be friends with had they stuck around. This is a personal choice. They'd know what they were getting into.

Is the desire for plonking related more to being a spectator, or a participant?

I don't see it as one or the other. The requests I've gotten for plonking came from active participants, but I see the choice to filter what you read as being just as valuable to lurkers.

Does the value of promoting plonking outweigh the value of promoting tolerance?

I understand where you are going with this, but do not recognize the choices we will be making as being what you state. Allowing plonking is vastly different from promoting it. I do not see the plonking option as spreading intolerance, as you seem to imply.

Is there going to be a vetting process or live testing period for significant new features, outside the inner circle of those effecting changes?

Oh my yes. NOTHING is being changed without testing on staging & discussion with both the admins and any eplayans who want to participate.

[technopatra]

>

Absolutely. Antron proposed a mod that allows you to change stuff
immediately, through your user profile, and I believe that's the one the
team is considering....If I get a moment, I'll review the mod again and see if it handles this, and if not check for others that do.

This mod does not seem to actually exist, yet. I spent the afternoon hunting the phpbb site for a plonking mod, and the closest one they have is an ignore user that it set by the admin, and hides the user system-wide (but he user doesn't know it, they still see their own posts". There is also some sort of 'yellow card" warning, but again, that is set by the admin.

Did you or Antron actually find a mod somewhere that is user- rather than admin-controlled?

[DE FACTO]

I don't know if this will help any; however I have been researching since the topic of the "plonker" first made it's debut several months back and today I came across this.

Posted by: Orioli

Strike, I don't really understand your frustation about the censorchip system.

I just can't make changes to the community every time a member doesnt like something.

You opened a thread
here.
about how "p-u-t-a" in the word "c-o-m-p-u-t-a-t-i-o-n" gets blocked out, I responded to your thread and corrected the problem. Then you opened another thread, even when a final desicion was already taken.

I dont see how the coderforums community can benefit from removing the censorchip system?

PROBLEM: You dont want your words to be censored
SOLUTION: Dont use inappropriate words!

(inappropriate words = Offensive words or foul language)

Simple as that!

I figure if you substitute the name of the user for "the bad word" you should have something.


Just my 2 cents.

This is the link where I found this article;

http://coderforums.com/archive/topic/1800-1.html