from: http://www.ip-wars.net/comments/2005/2/14/124021/460/34#34

Nono, much as I respect the sentiment and work put into that, it's off topic in this article.  It belings in either my current site discussion article or one of the other articles for site discussion created earlier.

This is exactly the inward redirection I've been screaming about.

As a suggestion I would make the subject line for a redirection with discussion "MOVED TO" and a link in the body.

This takes a little work but if an off topic in article is worth responding to at all, it's worth the work of moving it.

I strongly urge that you alter the language in such a way that - at minimum - within user's diaries ratings to hide off topic posts (at least after first warning) is acceptable if the author has stated such an intent.

My actual preferences for changes would be much stronger:

No PR postings.
Follow the scoop default setting that a non tu comment remain invisible until rated by a tu.
Set the hide threshold between on-topic and topical (say 2.5).

I realize much of the membership would disagree with several of those and that they should be discussed communally before action is taken.

But again I strongly urge language to let members at minimum give direction for his own writings (specially in diaries) for what he wishes to accomplish and urge communal assistance to achieve it.

http://www.ip-wars.net/comments/2005/3/4/102144/6435/6#6
]

Why thank you, Potential Recruit!

A Groklaw article, much more relevant to this particular diary, can be found here:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050304154900524

As to contrubuting, well, I think I shall. Indeed, good heavens, I already have! Fourth down on the list.

As to IP-Wars. My view is (and please don't let on about this), but whatever others may do here (which seems to be mainly involved in arguing with various Potential Recruits such as yourself. I must admit, alas, that I myself have partook of that particular distraction) I will quietly use the small corner available to me to further my fight against Software Patents in Europe. There are some things I can do here that would be difficult to do on Groklaw. (And vice versa).

However, I thank you for your warning about the dire nature of this site. I will, of course fully bear it in mind.

Incidentally, what is your nym on Groklaw, or do you post anonymously there as well?

My nym, incidentally, is "Sesostris III"

Best regards

I agree with you that Jeff needs to make changes, just I think the changes need to be different as I think Jeff would subject himself to liability for libel if he restored that blog entry.

I'm not sure if you've actually seen what Bar did that was edited, but it wasn't a comment that could be modded down, which the rules state that's how comments work. What was edited was a blog entry, which isn't a comment that could be modded up or down by the IPW community. Jeff gives no explination on how blog entries are treated, which that should be rectified. I don't know how Scoop works to know if blog entries can be removed by the admin, but I think that would be the wiser course of action to do rather than edit.

Colonel, I call them as I see them.

If a post is both thought provoking and off topic, I am in a quandary.

I found this thread interesting enough to want to see it exist, if only long enough so I can read it. So I rated it honestly. Had I been able to rate the posts off topic, yet thought provoking, I would have.

Were it merely off topic, I would rate it accordingly. In the context of the existing/ongoing thread, the posts were on topic.

I found the thread by way of the recent comments link on the front page. I had not read Mikey's ratings rules at the top of the article as a result.

Speaking of which, I have as much respect for the guidelines here as anyone else.

With all due respect, I will not be told by you or any other single person here where/how to respond to/post/rate comments here.

You have a mechanism here to ostensibly let my comments and ratings sink or swim by democratic consensus.

Use that.

The proper way to continue an off topic thread is to move it.

No one, least of all me, is trying to tell you what to do.  But I felt some explanation is called for.

Our PR friend has polluted a lot of discussion and it frankly pisses me off.  I have created a site discussion article where anything is on topic, and encourage continuation of that practice.  But specific topical articles for should be reserved for discussion on topic and ESPECIALLY when the author calls for sanction to keep discussion on topic that should be respected.

Actually that is a good point I hadn't thought about.   Having posts go hidden might indeed be superficially similar to the effects of GL sandboxing in that the poster sees them when he posts then they can disappear shortly after.

The truth is that he knows if he ever sees a post here and it disappears that it's been rated invisible.  He can appeal to the TU's to review and reconsider.

I don't know how it will work if we go to a no-display before TU rating.

But there is no deliberate deception of letting the poster think it's visible to others when it's not.  One posts knowing that it will be rated and that one possibility is that it will be rated to invisibility.

There is no setting I know of which will cause or perpetuate such a deception.

I posted this in John Douglas diary. It probably should have just went straight here.

One of the few things the trolls have said that I agree with is that we need viewing thresholds. As on Slashdot, most severely negative ratings are deserved. Once something has been sent to the basement, I don't want to see it. "here-to-attack-you", scatboy, and so-forth have wasted enough of our energy.

I have no problems with others even PRs seeing the zeroed posts. Also as on Slashdot, the trolls can "just be here to attack us" in the under one basement. I think level 2 would be a good default threshold with anyone able to at least temporarily change it for that page view. Yes, even PRs. The code would have to be smart enough not to hide posts that are zeroed because they are unrated.

Since thresholds would be at an individual viewer's discretion, they'll have little reason to complain of censorship.

You have repeatedly said that we are anti-F/OSS; now you deny saying that we are not F/OSS.

So you are conceding that F/OSS is not a monolithic entity which is not generally attacked here (you admit that I am a part of F/OSS, but I have yet to see you assert that I am attacking myself, QED).

Mikey's post essentially makes the same point, that there is a wide spectrum if ideas under the F/OSS banner.

If you want to have a rational discussion, I shall check this thread from time to time.

http://www.ip-wars.net/comments/2005/2/26/18211/6649/46#46

Hi All,

This is not the first time Potential Recruit / Robbie the Robot has posted this post. He/she seems determined to keep one visible! As it is clearly important to him/her, can we see if we can get him/her to post a copy here, (in the O/T section), and in return, we'll keep it visible?

Cheers

Has anyone run into this and found a way around it, short of putting the + by flat nested in the comment preferences?

Given the scoop ratings system he has shown us how to create tu member only discussion regions.  You post a top level post with a convention that you want tu members to zero it (e. g. "0:" and once it's hidden nothing underneath is visible to non-tu's.  It doesn't even get reposted to the hidden's when automated processes look for the lt 1's to repost.  (Please don't zero THIS, as I want scatboy to see that he's actually helped!)

To be fair to the initiator's mojo, the top level post should be empty and he should post his real discussion in a daughter post which those who think it worth discussing as tu-only should rate 5 to restore the initiator's mojo for the zero.  Then subsequent discussion should go on underneath that.

I'll repost this under the site discussion article where it's actually on-topic.

First while there were certainly deplorable excesses riding on the Senator's coattails, what I've heard is that the historical record seems to indicate that he was correct in his specific allegations.   I've not followed this in any detail, only in broad outline so feel free to disagree, I simply point out that that seems to be the prevailing wisdom.

Now in this specific case, the entire structure of the thread under Jeff's top level post was controlled and architected and kept off topic by matesrates.  Likewise I noted the repeated replies and with similarly ambiguous challanges in various differing subthreads to keep the topic going.  Off topic given the top level comment and article purpose.  

It's structure and development is amazingly similar to the way scatboy incites repeated off topic replies in other places.

The final tipoff for me was the way that PR posts would pop up immediately following matesrates posts.  The timing and subthread location was extremely suspicious.

My tentative hypothesis is that matesrates is the under cover nom de guerre of one of our pet PR's if not scatboy himself.  It's also possible that he has his own purposes and agenda of trolling.  I however find it unprofitable to expend effort to distinguish trolls.

Note that no one needs my favor or cooperation to make positive contributions here.  One can do that totally independent of my thoughts and opinions.  But it is a definite disadvantage to a hostile for someone to call troll to let others know that they are being played.

If I am wrong he can make positive topical contributions, moving off topic threads to an appropriate article or diary when he feels he needs to continue off topic discussions, and in a month or two I will know that I was wrong.  I predict that that will not happen.

So my purpose in calling troll on matesrates.  To let others understand that they are being led around and kicked to give out a moo and drop another pile of dung in our little barn rather than help clean it up.

I am curious how you would define the ratings?

Here is what they are currently after debate and agreement here along with some of the explanation from the FAQ.

"But, you might be asking, what do the ratings, 0-5 mean? Well, I suppose that technically they mean whatever you want them to mean since it is your tool to rate comments. But by way of general guidance, I've put together the following (cobbled together from various inspirational sources):

    * 0 - (zero), this is the lowest rating a comment can be given and is only available to users who have "trusted user" status. This rating should only be used for comments that are obviously spam (by obviously spam, I mean something like providing nothing but a link to some other site, usually selling something questionable) or porn. Use caution in using this rating - it should only be deployed in cases of obvious abuse of the site.

    * 1 - (one), this is the lowest rating that can be assigned by normal users of the site. Probably it's most effective usage would be in rating obvious trolls. If a comment is just way off-topic, is comprised of nothing but ad hominem attacks, so poorly written as to be almost unintelligible, then it may qualify for a 1 rating.

    * 2 - (two), the next rating up indicates there is perhaps something of value in the comment. But perhaps the writer included a lot of extra material that really had nothing to do with the topic, or their presentation was pretty bad due to language or gross generalizations, exceedingly faulty logic. Basically, a good try, but keep working on it if you want to earn some respect.

    * 3 - (three), this is the average rating for comments on the site. The comment makes a good point or two or contains some good, worthwhile information.

    * 4 - (four), is where we start to move up in the range to comments that include good points, provide some good information, something that makes us think, to go "hmmm". Or, at least puts a smile on your face. The writer keeps the post on topic and stays away from cheap techniques like name-calling.

    * 5 - (five), the top of the range, this should be reserved for posts that are exceedingly well written. Perhaps they make a point or include information that sticks in your mind even after you leave the site. Perhaps it inspires you to do your own research. But in at least some way, you think it is something that everyone should read.

So, those are the general guidelines. As a final bit of advice though, we ask that you:

Rate comments based on how well the argument is presented, not on whether you agree or disagree with the content of the topic.

Yes, rating something high that you absolutely do not agree with is difficult to do. But if the person making the comment has written it up well, rating it high will keep it close to the top in terms of visibility, which in turn keeps all of the rebuttals close to the top."

Let's use the simple definition of hypocisy: acts at odds with one's stated rules/beliefs.

Because we wish to see ourselves as good and the other guy as bad we tend to draw the lines as closely as possible to our own actions. I. e. the line is riiiggghhht here so that I am right and you doing almost exactly the same with this one leeetle difference is wrong.   Ok fine. But the problem is that words are always open to interpretation.  Somebody who doesn't like me is going to go out of his way to spin the words so that I'm on the wrong side of my own line.

Fortunately I know the magic of words and the secret of magic.  Mine enemy can gain no power over me with words alone.

Hipocrisy is also mathematically inevitable.  Given our life experience we formulate rules(t0), tell people what they are and really try to live by them.   But it's absolutely certain that the rules are incomplete (Church).  And Lord Finagle will find a way to throw us into a situation where  those rules are inadequate and the situation undecidable (hailing, Goedel), usually about the day after we've made a promise based upon them.  So now we formulate rules(t1).  But rules(t0) != rules(t1) so some wisass clown down the road a bit  is going to say hey, you're doing this now but that contradicts rules(t0) which you SAID was what you believe! You can't say t1 NOW.  You're a damned HYPOCRITE!

Guilty.

We sail ass-backwards through time seeing where we've been but with only a hand mirror of wisdom  to peek behind us into the future.  

That's what makes it an adventure.  Enjoy it!

It is bad enought that ip-wars harbours many 'crack-pot' variety members but they are also in effective control of the site.

One last thought, if ip-wars is ever to dig itself out of the pit it is in, some real effort has to be made.

You will be able to claim a new registered user, as you often do, as an indication of how successful ip-wars is doing as a website.

I have noticed Elite members are always clamouring for PRs to register and I also notice that members are never removed from your ranks even when they publicly state they are leaving and request their posts to be removed.

Then there are the members who are put in administrative jail, do you still count them as registered users?

If this website and it's administrator were honest, they would remove people from the member list and adjust the registered users list accordingly when members are jailed or publicly quit.

Your website claims over 200 registered users but it is apparent that is a total lie.

This website would be better if it wasn't based on lies.

Members have betrayed trust by ignoring the ratings guidelines to create a place where only their opinion will be tolerated.

They have also ensured that only those that share their opinions will be able to reach "trusted" status.

When confronted, these members arrogantly dismiss anyone who questions their unethical behaviour with spiteful vitriol.

In this manner, the board can only continue to wrap itself in the F/LOSS flag for a limited time.