Comments on: Call for comments on the code of conduct at Fool’s mountain

By: raventhorn4000

raventhorn4000 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:17:13 +0000

I think there have been too many 1 sided collapses without explanations.

see http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/06/03/tiananmen-1989-a-need-for-dialogue-20-years-later/#comment-41675

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:36:14 +0000

Personally, I only use my vote to collapse comments that either violate the post rules or are completely off topic. I’ve always given a reason because I think the commentator should know why I did it, and that it wasn’t an arbitrary act. I never vote a topic up because my vote has too much power. If a comment is voted down by everyone though I might not feel it deserves to be, I still leave it alone because that was the purpose of instituting the voting mechanism. When it comes to voting, I’m not God and I don’t want to be.

I understand what Raj is saying when he talks about comments that get negative votes as soon as they’re posted, no matter what they say. It’s more of who the author is than the comment content, but it always seemed to be a consistent two negative votes so I didn’t think it was a big deal. The pattern was so consistent that I think everyone on the blog realized it was more personal animosity than an actual judgment of the content itself.

By: Raj

Raj — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:44:46 +0000

I think it would be useful if only moderators/thread owners could vote comments down. I’ve noticed that some people are eager to vote others’ comments down simply because they don’t agree with the points being made.

I think it would be best if posts are simply collapsed or not. Maybe you could just remove the voting all together and have a “collapse”/”uncollapse” feature for the mods and thread owners.

By: raventhorn4000

raventhorn4000 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:35:03 +0000

I have no problem with voting by everyone.

Though it reduces the meaning of the vote, when people have a different # of votes.

By: admin

admin — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:21:06 +0000

@WKL,

I reset the vote. My guess is an editor voted down your comment by mistake and then highlighted it.

By: Wukailong

Wukailong — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:03:32 +0000

@admin: One of my comments in the democracy thread (http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/06/28/what-is-democracy-and-how-does-it-relate-to-china/) got both highlighted and voted down, so perhaps there’s a split in the blog leadership.

On a serious note, though, Steve comments under the comments he has collapsed. That’s a good step, and if all moderators follow it, there might not be a need for further changes. I don’t think there is a need to remove voting power from non-moderators, at least not at this point.

By: admin

admin — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:58:19 +0000

@Raj,

Yes, people should make it clear if they change their comments substantively. If someone misspeaks and wants to take it back in 3 hours, I think that should be allowed.

@R4K and WKL,

Anyone who thinks their comments are unfairly collapsed can email me with detailed info so I check them out. I like the idea of keep moderator voting transparent. I know Steve usually state his reason after collapsing a comment. And I hope other moderators will do the same. On the other hand, shall we limit voting power to moderators/thread owners only? Currently everyone can vote without stating a reason.

By: Wukailong

Wukailong — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:18:55 +0000

@admin: raventhorn4000 has a good idea. Perhaps the reason could be stated in boldface in the collapsed comment, or next to the comment header?

By: raventhorn4000

raventhorn4000 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:40:29 +0000

Admin,

There have been too many collapsing comments as of late.

If moderators are to collapse comments, I would ask that they state a valid reason. I was commenting on the substantive issues, and 1 of my comments got collapsed for no reason.

By: Raj

Raj — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:58:47 +0000

admin, can we have a rule to make it clear that people can only clarify their post with an “EDIT” below or something if people have already responded? Otherwise some people might abuse it by revisiting their posts and pretend they never made a comment in the first place.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:30:35 +0000

I extended the time window that a comment can be edited to 3 hours. So if anyone wants to provide additional content shortly after posing a comment, they are able to do so.

By: raventhorn4000

raventhorn4000 — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:33:26 +0000

Do “defensive diversions” include 1 liners used to insult other posters, their English skills, etc.?

Just to be sure, I like some clarifications on that point.

I think I made such complaints before, but allowing such 1 liners is just an open invitation for responses in kind.

By: barny chan

barny chan — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:33:03 +0000

Something that would improve the quality of the debate here enormously is a limit on the number of posts that any one person can make in a 24hr period. As it stands, anybody with determination and a great deal of time on their hands has the capacity to smother genuine dialogue. A limit (and it can be a generous limit) would encourage posters to engage directly with the meat of a thread rather than simply create defensive diversions.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:46:48 +0000

OK, the rules are official and I put a link of this thread in the FAQ section.

By: admin

admin — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:25:58 +0000

I just want to let everyone know that we are going to make the rules final in just a few days. So if you have any additional feedback, please leave a comment. The rules will be rigorously enforced once they are in effect.