Real trolls aren't a threat to community Zen, because they manage to build a great consensus against themselves.
Haven't you ever encountered a troll with patience, one who gets in and tries to destroy from there? I have, and I am not currently sure we'd survive one.
I don't mean to get all paranoid, and perhaps troll is a misleading term, because I've seen it also happen when an established member of a community gets all Angelus with some Yoko Factor thrown in for fun.
I just hope we're strong enough for that, is all.
As for empowerment? I'd barely trust myself with the power. I don't think it's us, for good or for ill. Salon worked, as much as it did, because they were a company with employed Stompies. Similarly, TWOP has the authoritarian framework to do that. I dunno, we're too busy acting egalitarian to go there without doing damage in the process -- pre-emptive damage, at that.
I don't mean to get all paranoid, and perhaps troll is a misleading term, because I've seen it also happen when an established member of a community gets all Angelus with some Yoko Factor thrown in for fun.
This is the only way I've ever seen it go down. And it's nasty.
I think there are some people here who might. I don't think 98% of the people would, but there are certainly some who I could see going overboard.
I think that could be worked against by the E.P.s having to discuss what they did amongst themselves, and by cycling people through the role on a relatively short term.
I don't think it's us, for good or for ill.
And I don't think what Bureaucracy has turned into is us, and I can only see it getting less-us if there isn't some actual enforcement of community standards.
I could never do the job, not with the debates. I could shut someone down who came in shrieking obscenities and laying waste, I could do that in a cold second. But once debate enters the equation, I start seeing the other person's side and wanting to engage and try to get them to see the possible error of their ways. I'd make a great hit man, taking out strangers at a distance. Once I see them as a person, though, I'm all "Can't we all just get along?"
I've seen it also happen when an established member of a community gets all Angelus with some Yoko Factor thrown in for fun.
Yep, me too. That's what destroyed the last Buffista-like community I was a member of.
I agree with Michele that the current system isn't working. And there's some appeal to her proposal. But I think it needs some changes. I'm not comfortable with giving any one person the power to suspend anyone for 2 months. That's a lot of power, and it works only if every e.p. uses that power responsibly. And we can't guarantee that.
I think this would improve her plan:
(1) A small number of e.p.s serving at any one time (say, 5 or 7).
(2) Stagger the terms of e.p.s, so there's some continuity from month to month.
(3) No person may serve more than one term as an e.p. in any 12-month period.
(4) Any two e.p.s may suspend any poster for up to 7 days. The e.p.s must inform the suspended person of the conduct resulting in the suspension, including the thread and specific posts.
(5) Any one e.p. may suspend any poster for 0 days, subject to the same limitations described in (4). (In effect, this is an Official Warning system.)
(6) A majority of all e.p.s may recommend a suspension of more than 7 days or a complete ban. The recommendation must be posted in the Bureaucracy thread and is subject to debate and vote under the applicable Buffista rules. The proposal ultimately put up for vote may offer a choice of multiple sanctions, and need not include the sanction recommended by the e.p.s. Voters must be allowed to vote for "no sanction."
I can't say I like this option. But the town meeting format is causing too many feelings to be hurt too deeply. And some form of e.p.s may be the lesser of evils.
Fred, I like your proposal better than I like mine.
ETA: Number!
I like Fred's proposal as well.
Is it time to second it? Or what.
Oh, also we need to start the new Official Discussion Thread.
