This user group clearly needs moderation, but moderation doesn't work. The peer-review system in scientific publication does work, more or less, but it is very difficult to get referees to review papers before them got published. What we might use here is post-publication refereeing - if you wanted to react to a post, you have to referee it before you could comment on it. I'm thinking of a system where you'd have classify the post you were reacting as "on-topic" - electronics, or "science", "culture", "politics", "recycled propganda" or "personal abuse/flattery" and rate it on a five point scale, from useful (+2) down through helpful (+1) through neutral (0") to unhelpful (-1) to misleading (-2). You'd have to pick on one classification and put in one rating before you could post your reaction. Anybody raking up a significant negative score would be blocked from making more posts. The scores you gave would be as informative as the scores you got. and somebody who always gave negative scores would have their ratings normalised so that their average score came out neutral. People who'd made a lot of posts would be more influential than newbies, and people who had been making posts for years ditto - to minimise the influence of people setting up fake logins to buy extra influence. This post would be about politics (if taken at face value) and rated as +1 because it isn't worked out in detail. A a will see it as personal abuse, because it is clearly aimed at him and people like him - Commander Kinsey - and he'd rate it at -2 because he always does. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
OT: Amodest proposal
Started by ●November 19, 2023
Reply by ●November 19, 20232023-11-19
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:24:54 AM UTC-6, Anthony William Sloman wrote:> This user group clearly needs moderation, but moderation doesn't work. > > The peer-review system in scientific publication does work, more or less, but it is very difficult to get referees to review papers before them got published. > > What we might use here is post-publication refereeing - if you wanted to react to a post, you have to referee it before you could comment on it. > > I'm thinking of a system where you'd have classify the post you were reacting as "on-topic" - electronics, or "science", "culture", "politics", "recycled propganda" or "personal abuse/flattery" and rate it on a five point scale, from useful (+2) down through helpful (+1) through neutral (0") to unhelpful (-1) to misleading (-2). > > You'd have to pick on one classification and put in one rating before you could post your reaction. > > Anybody raking up a significant negative score would be blocked from making more posts. > > The scores you gave would be as informative as the scores you got. and somebody who always gave negative scores would have their ratings normalised so that their average score came out neutral. > > People who'd made a lot of posts would be more influential than newbies, and people who had been making posts for years ditto - to minimise the influence of people setting up fake logins to buy extra influence. > > This post would be about politics (if taken at face value) and rated as +1 because it isn't worked out in detail. > > A a will see it as personal abuse, because it is clearly aimed at him and people like him - Commander Kinsey - and he'd rate it at -2 because he always does. > > -- > Bill Sloman, SydneyI rate your post as culture and 0.
Reply by ●November 19, 20232023-11-19
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:34:15 -0800 (PST), John Smiht <utube.jocjo@xoxy.net> wrote:>On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:24:54?AM UTC-6, Anthony William Sloman wrote: >> This user group clearly needs moderation, but moderation doesn't work. >> >> The peer-review system in scientific publication does work, more or less, but it is very difficult to get referees to review papers before them got published. >> >> What we might use here is post-publication refereeing - if you wanted to react to a post, you have to referee it before you could comment on it. >> >> I'm thinking of a system where you'd have classify the post you were reacting as "on-topic" - electronics, or "science", "culture", "politics", "recycled propganda" or "personal abuse/flattery" and rate it on a five point scale, from useful (+2) down through helpful (+1) through neutral (0") to unhelpful (-1) to misleading (-2). >> >> You'd have to pick on one classification and put in one rating before you could post your reaction. >> >> Anybody raking up a significant negative score would be blocked from making more posts. >> >> The scores you gave would be as informative as the scores you got. and somebody who always gave negative scores would have their ratings normalised so that their average score came out neutral. >> >> People who'd made a lot of posts would be more influential than newbies, and people who had been making posts for years ditto - to minimise the influence of people setting up fake logins to buy extra influence. >> >> This post would be about politics (if taken at face value) and rated as +1 because it isn't worked out in detail. >> >> A a will see it as personal abuse, because it is clearly aimed at him and people like him - Commander Kinsey - and he'd rate it at -2 because he always does. >> >> -- >> Bill Sloman, Sydney > >I rate your post as culture and 0.I wonder how he proposes to enforce his rules. Of course most of his posts are mindless insults, even this one, so he'd exclude himself from s.e.d. He will, of course, follow up with more insults.
Reply by ●November 19, 20232023-11-19
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:57:13 AM UTC-6, John Larkin wrote:> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:34:15 -0800 (PST), John Smiht > <utube...@xoxy.net> wrote: > >On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:24:54?AM UTC-6, Anthony William Sloman wrote: > >> This user group clearly needs moderation, but moderation doesn't work. > >> > >> The peer-review system in scientific publication does work, more or less, but it is very difficult to get referees to review papers before them got published. > >> > >> What we might use here is post-publication refereeing - if you wanted to react to a post, you have to referee it before you could comment on it. > >> > >> I'm thinking of a system where you'd have classify the post you were reacting as "on-topic" - electronics, or "science", "culture", "politics", "recycled propganda" or "personal abuse/flattery" and rate it on a five point scale, from useful (+2) down through helpful (+1) through neutral (0") to unhelpful (-1) to misleading (-2). > >> > >> You'd have to pick on one classification and put in one rating before you could post your reaction. > >> > >> Anybody raking up a significant negative score would be blocked from making more posts. > >> > >> The scores you gave would be as informative as the scores you got. and somebody who always gave negative scores would have their ratings normalised so that their average score came out neutral. > >> > >> People who'd made a lot of posts would be more influential than newbies, and people who had been making posts for years ditto - to minimise the influence of people setting up fake logins to buy extra influence. > >> > >> This post would be about politics (if taken at face value) and rated as +1 because it isn't worked out in detail. > >> > >> A a will see it as personal abuse, because it is clearly aimed at him and people like him - Commander Kinsey - and he'd rate it at -2 because he always does. > >> > >> -- > >> Bill Sloman, Sydney > > > >I rate your post as culture and 0. > I wonder how he proposes to enforce his rules.Same goes for the US Supreme Court.> Of course most of his posts are mindless insults, even this one, so > he'd exclude himself from s.e.d. > > He will, of course, follow up with more insults.
Reply by ●November 20, 20232023-11-20
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:57:13 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:34:15 -0800 (PST), John Smiht > <utube...@xoxy.net> wrote: > >On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:24:54?AM UTC-6, Anthony William Sloman wrote: > >> This user group clearly needs moderation, but moderation doesn't work. > >> > >> The peer-review system in scientific publication does work, more or less, but it is very difficult to get referees to review papers before them got published. > >> > >> What we might use here is post-publication refereeing - if you wanted to react to a post, you have to referee it before you could comment on it. > >> > >> I'm thinking of a system where you'd have classify the post you were reacting as "on-topic" - electronics, or "science", "culture", "politics", "recycled propganda" or "personal abuse/flattery" and rate it on a five point scale, from useful (+2) down through helpful (+1) through neutral (0") to unhelpful (-1) to misleading (-2). > >> > >> You'd have to pick on one classification and put in one rating before you could post your reaction. > >> > >> Anybody raking up a significant negative score would be blocked from making more posts. > >> > >> The scores you gave would be as informative as the scores you got. and somebody who always gave negative scores would have their ratings normalised so that their average score came out neutral. > >> > >> People who'd made a lot of posts would be more influential than newbies, and people who had been making posts for years ditto - to minimise the influence of people setting up fake logins to buy extra influence. > >> > >> This post would be about politics (if taken at face value) and rated as +1 because it isn't worked out in detail. > >> > >> A a will see it as personal abuse, because it is clearly aimed at him and people like him - Commander Kinsey - and he'd rate it at -2 because he always does. > >> > >> -- > >> Bill Sloman, Sydney > > > >I rate your post as culture and 0. > I wonder how he proposes to enforce his rules. > > Of course most of his posts are mindless insults, even this one, so > he'd exclude himself from s.e.d. > > He will, of course, follow up with more insults.Personal abuse/flattery -2. Enforcing the rules would be left to an algorithm built into the machines that hosted the forum - I hadn't thought that it would be necessary to spell that out. It wouldn't be a simple linear sum, which I did point out, and there might be a certain amount of pattern recognition built in, so that somebody who sees a lot more personal abuse/flattery than most might see their reactions less heavily weighed than others. I explicitly mentioned a a to bring this out. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 20, 20232023-11-20
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 10:44:07 PM UTC-6, Anthony William Sloman wrote:> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:57:13 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:34:15 -0800 (PST), John Smiht > > <utube...@xoxy.net> wrote: > > >On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:24:54?AM UTC-6, Anthony William Sloman wrote: > > >> This user group clearly needs moderation, but moderation doesn't work. > > >> > > >> The peer-review system in scientific publication does work, more or less, but it is very difficult to get referees to review papers before them got published. > > >> > > >> What we might use here is post-publication refereeing - if you wanted to react to a post, you have to referee it before you could comment on it. > > >> > > >> I'm thinking of a system where you'd have classify the post you were reacting as "on-topic" - electronics, or "science", "culture", "politics", "recycled propganda" or "personal abuse/flattery" and rate it on a five point scale, from useful (+2) down through helpful (+1) through neutral (0") to unhelpful (-1) to misleading (-2). > > >> > > >> You'd have to pick on one classification and put in one rating before you could post your reaction. > > >> > > >> Anybody raking up a significant negative score would be blocked from making more posts. > > >> > > >> The scores you gave would be as informative as the scores you got. and somebody who always gave negative scores would have their ratings normalised so that their average score came out neutral. > > >> > > >> People who'd made a lot of posts would be more influential than newbies, and people who had been making posts for years ditto - to minimise the influence of people setting up fake logins to buy extra influence. > > >> > > >> This post would be about politics (if taken at face value) and rated as +1 because it isn't worked out in detail. > > >> > > >> A a will see it as personal abuse, because it is clearly aimed at him and people like him - Commander Kinsey - and he'd rate it at -2 because he always does. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Bill Sloman, Sydney > > > > > >I rate your post as culture and 0. > > I wonder how he proposes to enforce his rules. > > > > Of course most of his posts are mindless insults, even this one, so > > he'd exclude himself from s.e.d. > > > > He will, of course, follow up with more insults. > Personal abuse/flattery -2. > > Enforcing the rules would be left to an algorithm built into the machines that hosted the forum - I hadn't thought that it would be necessary to spell that out. It wouldn't be a simple linear sum, which I did point out, and there might be a certain amount of pattern recognition built in, so that somebody who sees a lot more personal abuse/flattery than most might see their reactions less heavily weighed than others. I explicitly mentioned a a to bring this out. > > -- > Bill Sloman, SydneyYes, a a is a definite pain in the ass. I would pay to get rid of his nonsense.
