I quite like the forum how it is,
I wanted to add this clarification at the top. The ECC is not the Employees. In a project like this, where you get people working under their market value for something they love you can end up with a situation where a critique of the handling of a situation by the ECC is seen as a slight on the person who did the work/suggested it.
It also unfortunately follows back the same route, where the community will blame an employee for the behaviour of the ECC.
This happens a lot in game development too. I want to express my support on a personal level for the employees of the company and can strongly empathise with the level of connection they feel between the company, zcash tech and themselves. The line is fuzzy for them. For outsiders it is not so fuzzy and can lay anywhere, in the bounds of reason or out side of them.
- I think moving the software away from discourse is a bad move.
- I think moderation is fine
- If you take away a the space for people to interact with the ECC and zcfd it will just be else where.
- Wiki’s are curated spaces forums are not.
- I don’t see a problem that needs fixing (does this mean I am the problem?)
- I don’t see how anything that has been outlined will alleviate peoples fears.
- please read this https://meta.discourse.org/t/what-are-likes/30803
- “skin in the game” is a specious argument.
The community can and will correct misinformation. All I see as needed at a maximum would be a highlight scheme for official positions. like mod edit. i even put a bounty on it. - This would greatly help containment of the sort of stuff that you wanted, people can move the post to a different category, wiki the post, then add the highlighted official ECC/Foundation response. Putting it in a category called something like “controversy”, “Common misinformation”, etc would greatly help in this regard.
All online spaces go through peaks and troughs. I don’t see how making it more like reddit would help, nor how more censorship helps. I do see what you are try to get at though.
If there needs to be a space for curated information surely that should be in the form of a wiki and its discussion page. In fact I can even make a wiki from threads. I haven’t clicked that button yet, but I will do after this post. lets see if the world explodes. - it didn’t do what I thought it did. It just makes the post a “wiki” post. dunno who can edit it.
A forum should be for all. you cannot tell if someone is acting in bad faith or not. It is an issue, but not one solvable by non human intervention. If a person with no ill intent posts stuff they saw on twitter that is inflammatory this should be a place to correct them.
It took me a while initially to ‘get’ discourse (as in the software and how it is intended to work) but the whole downvote/sage/mark post as true, etc does discourage active discourse of a subject. Don’t just say you are wrong, you need to let people know why/how they are wrong.
Remember if you give awards like “gives back”, “has 10 likes on 10 posts”, etc you are going to have to do the same in the negative.
A lot of the time people will see new people or strongly opinionated people as ‘weeds’ A great example of this would be @boxaex’s advocation of ASIC mining (something he later publicly retracted after he saw what they did) got him labelled by a lot of the community as a Bitmain shill.
In the walled garden/echo chamber model you outline, who here gets labelled the trouble maker the accuser or the accused? It is so nuanced it has to boil down to its all okay or none is okay. if none is okay, use a wiki.
I think you are also doing the moderation team a great disservice. They have always been up for getting involved and correcting misinformation. I cant remember who, but someone posted a link in the asic thread about how geeks talk to non geeks online, it was from the late 90’s I think. it was probably page or sonya. I will have a look.
Many people lurk and don’t post, they are still thinking these things. I said this to Nathan and he strong disagreed. however I haven’t changed my mind. People will be thinking what other people post. And that needs to be addressed, maybe create a space where threads can be moved to, say “controversial” and people can discuss them there.
And I see it more as “the forum that was”. anyway. its all just turtles at the end of the day. turtles all the way down.
Really, for you to see someones’s point of view not detrimental to zec, how much would they first have to own? Them going through a forum like this and seeing the contention, etc is a form of due diligence - because how discourse (the software) was designed.
It has some powerful thoughts and link on this topic in that thread. But I am a free speech advocate. say what you want, as long as it is polite. Expect others to be able to do the same to you.
Since sonya is reorging the place maybe have a “common misconceptions” area, and a “needs attention area” we people can move threads to.
Twitter, reddit, etc, do not really facilitate discussion, they reinforce pre-existing ideas.
@sonya - not quoting your bit about being nicer, you are nice. if you want to get ‘corporate nice’ go do call centre work for a year or so. (complaints or customer service) - or if you just want to be more ‘effective’ go read Wendy’s food chains twitter. I think the latter is a much better idea. also ECC != foundation.