OK, I am willing to engage in this discourse, which I very much hope will be productive. I do have a few comments and criticisms; they may sound negative in tone, but they are real concerns, at least for me, and they represent points on which concensus may be neccesary. I should also say I am not a fan either of censorship or regulation, except where absolutely unavoidable. Numbering relates to svpii's original points:

1. Assuming moderators are chosen, in addition to svpii's suggestions, the guidelines within which they work must be public so that they can be clearly understood by the membership. It should also be clear on what grounds a moderator would be removed.

I would like to see any moderators have a 'sweeping' role, where topics can be moved from forums where they are off-topic, to those where they are on-topic (working either from the existing guidelines or strengthened ones). The simplest way this would work is with the consent of the moderators of both forums involved. A link to the moved thread could be left where the initial thread was, with the old thread being locked.

2. This UAC idea seems unwieldy to me. First, it makes the big assumption that Webflyer is willing to devolve such matters from themeselves as owners and operators, to us as customers. If they take the step of accepting the UAC, it is implied that they will have to listen to it. Moreover, mechanisms do exist for much of what is described already, in the form of the Suggestions, Technical and Randy Petersen forums, all of which seem to work fairly well. I also have great concerns about the elctorate; svpii addresses multiple usenames below, but presumably all registered members would be entilted to vote. I struggle to see a mechanism whereby existing multiple usernames could be excluded from such an election. Moreover, I don't really see how stuffing could be prevented where an individual generates spurious identities. Furthermore, such a system would need to be clearly explained to new visitors as it would be quite uncommon for the internet. I don't want to see a situation where the current 'use the search' answer is replaced by 'ask the UAC' or 'because the UAC said so'. If it is adopted, I prefer the concept of half the members having 2 years terms and half 1 year. As for term-limits, I have always felt that if the election is democratic, artificial limits subvert the will of the electorate and I see no reason to support them in this context.

3. I like the hot room idea - particulalry the part about locking a thread in its existing forum and duplicating it in the 'war room'. That reduces my concern about losing valuable items in flame threads. If a member wishes to contribute further positive information to a locked thread, would they be free to start it again? if so, what happens when/if flaming starts again?

4. This is a can of worms. Firstly, insults can be very country specific. What is insulting in US English is not in British English, etc. etc. How about non-English languages? I freely admit that the current software is also inadequate in this regard. However, specific guidleines should be published as to what will and will not be tolerated. Also, by 'verbal attcks towards any individual will ... not be tolerated', I assume you mean attacks on an individual's character (+ethnicity, sexualtity, etc)? Clearly, if someone posts information that is false, or incorrect, I should be entitled to correct it. They may perceive my action as an attack on them. Once again, this is a grey area, but one in which some policy would be welcome.

5. OK. However, how do you prevent multiple identities?

6. I think this is already the case (and I completely agree with it).

7. I disagree. If multiple aliases are not permitted, there should not be exceptions. I think it is clear that even use of the 'comedy' aliases has caused resentment among those being attcked for using them for more sinister purposes.

As for preventing multiple aliases in general, just how do we do that? I have more than 5 email addresses that I could register with that are specific to an organisation (i.e. not Yahoo, hotmail, etc.). In another of these threads, someone suggested using credit card registration (not for payment, but for identification). That would only work if full details were taken, including full name and billing address; are people prepared to divulge that information to a bulletin board? Also, I can see how these policies would apply to newcomers, but will there be a retroactive sweep of all existing members as well, those who don't comply being kicked out?

8. Good idea. Once again, my only problem is with the fair and consistent enforcement.

There are several recurring themes here: Does webflyer have the resources or the desire to police this board? Will changes me made in the framework of strong, well publicised guidelines (i.e. will there be strong leadership, or a continuance of the current state of self-policing and almost complete freedom)? How can some of these ideas be fairly and effectively enforced?

James


[This message has been edited by james (edited 03-04-2001).]

[This message has been edited by james (edited 03-04-2001).]