 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Re: CMS by Zseni 08/05/2004, 4:30pm PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
jeep wrote: This is the Little Mouse That Roared. Yes, I'm well aware that someone, somewhere, has to know the IP of every poster, and I want a situation where that someone isn't everyone. I mean: there should be totally anonymous posting with the same full creation rights as any variety of regular or registered user. But things start to get all muddy when it comes to the question of registration. I like the idea of being able to see all of a particular user's posts! You like being able to give registered email-contactable users a little leeway! Should there be (100% entirely optional) user registration? That gives us: checking out all of a user's posts means all those posts are definitely by that user, but it also means no more nick spoofing. I like nick spoofing a lot because it confuses people and generally makes trouble, but I think perhaps I am in the minority on this count. The wiki setup allows for a lot of new kinds of trouble, too. Would it be possible for you to do something tricky and queer like building in the capability to register user names...but not activating it right away? More than that: being able to activate or deactivate it at will? Because then the wiki-ites could decide for themselves whether they wanted user registration or not, and if they don't like it, they could undecide it later? And redecide it again? (Expanding on this idea: building in a host of functions of questionable importance and support, allowing the denizens to select, by whatever method they select to select this sort of thing by, the functions they do and don't want applied to the site globally? Ex: friends' pages, private articles/discussions, user/topic blocks. Well I can't code, I'm just theorizing here. I imagine that sort of thing would involve a lot of work and I'm not clear whether the ends justify the means. The one thing almost every forum has in common, though, is that while they add features, and some even take away features, none do so like an on/off switch at user behest.) I think a more feasible goal would be to have a charter, or a few up front rules about how things can and can not be used. I know you're no longer visiting #ga, but the old 'rule one' thing actually worked pretty well for years. I'm a fan of the US Constitution's delineation of powers, but I'd put them in more explicit, modern terms. However, you, me and everyone else realizes this sort of thing is just an elaborate way to say 'trust me'. Yes, exactly, "trust me." I couldn't have ever thought to put it that way but there you are: there must at some point be a r00t and everyone has to trust the root to participate in the wiki, and vice versa the root dood has to be able to trust at least some of his users not to fuck shit up all the time. Rights and Responsibilities of the Host and Visitors of a Community Website Yes, but: one of the things I'm interested in seeing is users policing other users. I'm willing to be much more lenient than would be strictly rational because I want to see how the wiki develops its own rules, but also because I'm still working on the whole fair-limits-on-free-speech concept. In the real world, in America anyway, you can't shout fire in the crowded theater and you get arrested for kiddy porn. Within the wiki structure I want there to be as much leniency as possible, with the caveat that someone's virtual hard-ons shouldn't make real life trouble for anyone. Zseni's Law: don't do anything that would get the admin in trouble. Admin, who can and will maintain and edit the entire site. Responsible for continuous operation. I like this breakdown a lot. Still not settled on the whole users/no users thing, although I think you have a good idea about The idea here is that if I know you (in the loosest sense) you get a little leeway before any kind of smackdown. Except who would admit to posting kiddy porn besides me? I think that almost automatically, registered users don't break Big Rules like those. Or let me rephrase that: any idiot can fill out a registration form and then post kiddy porn to the site. But regular users not only follow the rules, they tend to influence and police those rules. If I were an admin, I wouldn't weight anything in favor of registration per se. I would, in fact, probably break out the IP logs and offer the regular user - registered or not - the second chance. Do I need an email if I can just post a message to the wiki? That puts a lot of work on the admin's shoulders, though. The article editing history is a double-edged sword, keeping records of illegal stuff even if users edit it out of the article. Feature idea: users can flag posts for admin attention. At least that way the admin won't have to read every post personally to find the nasties. Chet wasn't using the IP logs to track who was saying what about whom and then letting it leak out via AIM logs. In journalism that's the lost concept of 'integrity', but on the internet it's seen as sko holy grail to be pursued...right after we surf for some more porn. Hey, I didn't like Chet as a person, but he was just fine as an admin except for the forum deletions. Your note about the logs of who did what sounds perfect to me. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
