Bitcoin Forum

The Wall Observer thread is currently locked because it attracts way more off-topic posts than we want to deal with. Continuing the status quo is therefore not really an option. The thread can continue if the situation is changed in such a way that we don't have to constantly clean up its trash, however.

I will be looking at who voted what, and I might publish it here. Mostly I'm interested in hearing from participants in the Wall Observer thread.

Vote for every option that you consider acceptable.

Hey theymos,

I noticed that you're poll has 5 options, with the ability for the poll participant to select all 5.

Doesn't that sort of negate or skew the results?

Very good move from Theymos allowing the participants of Wall Observer to express their opinion of what we would prefer about the future of the thread. Thanks!

I would like to say that before voting you should really take something into account:

- The WO, as it was for a long time, was mostly outside the strict scope of its title and rules. (Let's be honest about this).
- Only two (second and third) voting options could allow it to continue in the same or even remotely similar way as it was.
- The other three are just basically three ways to enforce that the thread keeps strictly on topic (wall observing) without ANY offtopic posts.

I particularly liked the diversity of the tangencial subjects discussed in the thread so, in consciousness, I can't vote for any of those three options. Not even in the slight expectation that a new moderator will be flexible about its rules or banning will occur only in very extreme and blatant cases. That'd be cheating. If any of those options are chosen and, for any reason, the offtopics continue we will probably end in the same situation.

I would have preferred the options were to be in a "General Speculation" section instead of "Offtopic" or "Chat", as I don't think it is neither of those but.... let's not be picky here, those are the options and if that means the WO thread can be preserved as it was, then it's ok to me.

Also, a totally offtopic and unmoderated thread is probably not something really desirable by anyone. So probably the best option is the third one (offtopic allowed with some moderators just to maintain some minimum order), but maybe the second one would be an interesting experiment.

If you want to only and strictly talk (and read) about walls with no reference to any other topics that might or might not be related to those walls, then you have the three other choices to decide how it could be better enforced (But please don't do it in the expectation that it will not be enforced ie: a new moderator like adamsgt was).

Just my opinion.

No, it's fine.


Since option 1 is in the lead, I already wrote a draft of a policy change for that one, possibly addressing your concerns:

How do I vote?

Oh! I think that changes everything, but as the option says "and trust them to enforce on-topicness" I thought it was just another way of enforcing that only strict talk about walls would be allowed and that if the new owner/moderator wouldn't do it, he would be removed and the thread locked again.

Now that I re-read it, I see the answer from my POV is option 1: Unlock the thread, leave it where it is, and let Wall Observer mods police the thing as they see fit.

Oddly enough it's one of the best threads to get a pulse on what is happening in bitcoinland, and while dipshits and trolls do roll through from time to time they also go away, returning it to the normal levels of anarchy.

Thus it is what it is. Of course there is option 6:

[ ] Everyone post the same crap on this thread as Wall, thus extending the lunacy to Theymos' thread....

:-)

Vote for whichever option(s) is acceptable to you.

Keep in mind that if you vote for only one option, then you are giving all of the power of your vote to that one option; one other hand, if you vote for four items, then it would be as if you are voting against, the one item that you did not vote for..

Of course there are variations of how you could distribute your vote(s), but seems to be best just to consider which option(s) you believe are acceptable or most acceptable and vote accordingly.

Yep, I re-re-read the choices and see option 1 is that option. Edited my post accordingly, still resisting urge to start posting stupid things here. I have a choo choo train image.....

Thank you Theymos.
Long live the Wall Observer!

Don't do it... or next thing we will have roach complaining why silver and gold are not choices in the poll... and what's worse, trying to convince theymos those are way better choices and the current ones are stupid and won't go anywhere. If that happens we can kiss goodbye our beloved Wall Observer.

Theymos, first thanks for taking the time and effort to understand what it is about this thread that's worth continuing. I think the above quoted ruleset usefully encapsulates what it should be about and demonstrates that you've got the point of it, thanks again.

Apologies for losing my shit somewhat about the locked thread but we all agree that something had to change so kudos for taking the first difficult steps to sort it out.

Now which poor (lucky?) bastard wants to be WO listed owner?! A responsibility/challenge/opportunity unlike any other.  :D

Anyone but Meuh6879!!!
This guy already showed he wants to be another dictator.

How about killer potleaf?  He seems to be an lucky (or unlucky) bastard who is not too likely to dictate anything - HOWEVER,  he seems to have gotten us WO fanboys (and fangirl) in this predicament in the first place by failing and refusing to take adequate measures to regain access to his adamstbit account.

He would be the best candidate for obvious reasons were he was willing to do it. If I have understood correctly what theymos said, they would just don't give a shit if anyone (trolls mostly) complain about offtopic or silly things just because they don't share an opinion or whatever, and it would be up to the moderator to do what he feels appropiate to maintain the thread in reasonable good shape. If that's true, anyone that is not a control-freak and that follows the rule of minimum intervention would be ok to me. My vote goes for Killerpotleaf.

I support smeagol to be the new old mod. Not to confuse with Paashaas (the other smeagol).
Also @infofront has showed to be an honest mod in his Hard-forked WO thread.

This thread is one of my main gateways to all chat/news bitcoinical, with a slight emphasis on (short-term) price action. I've posted very little (lurking since forever), but I've done my bit of misusing, asking questions that were 100% on topic. Not.
So the "let's turn into a chat" bit is my favorite. Killing the discussion would be too much. Turning it into a chat room with a few main actors -  theatrical characters! - sounds just right. Kitten pics will be tolerated as long as they make a point, I hope.

The wall observer thread has been absolute fucking garbage dump for years.  I really don't understand why you care all of a sudden.  Just let it be the shithole it has grown to be.

Give control of the existing thread to Lauda. 

muhahahah.


Yea that would be a horrible idea.

I understand that, I mean where is the actual vote options. I dont see anywhere I can actually vote.. maybe Im being dumb

Maybe because I have a newbie account? I see the poll question and options at the top but there is no tick box or whatever for me to actually vote. Or is this voting system suppose to be like the US-style fake democracy where not everyones vote counts and voting can be restricted for minorities (non landlords) lol. Only joking. seriously though I dont know where I actually vote

Newbies can't vote and it's to stop abuse because people would bot the results. Think of yourself as a minor and you're not old enough to vote yet.

pmsl

Sorry.  I misunderstood.  You are probably correct that the voting requires you to be at least a Junior member or something like that.  

Otherwise, the voting option would have shown up at the top of the page when you first arrived at the page, and then once you vote, the top of the page then gives you the option to cancel your vote "remove vote," if you so chose.


PS:  Maybe you should go spam all around the forum, and hope that such spamming activities causes you to rank-up before the voting deadline on July 2... hahahahaha.... These mods have been ruthless lately.. so maybe I am going to get in trouble for such attempts at bad influencing?

Seems a number of forks already exist - fighting for the crowd.

I will delete my election suggestion - was probably daft anyway, I should have realised a fork was inevitable.

Ho hum!

haha ok thanks for clarification. Its ok, I never voted in my life so why start now right? Ill just join the largest fork when its been decided

That would be like ignoring the bitcoin cancer. Why do you think the trolls, haters and FUDsters are incentivised to turn it into a shithole?

Bitcoin has many enemies, the WO has become a natural focus for social media attacks on bitcoin.

Hello people

Long time lurker here. Just came to say that I appreciate so much your hard work guys. Most of the members in this thread (and WO of course) are doing a great job spreading the word, the truth!   You've taugh me a lot
Just registered a couple of days ago bc I saw the thread going nuts and wanted to say thanks to the honest people, mods included, that support it.
And I realized it was locked.

I cannot vote but I trust you'll know how to handle this situation

Let's make the humanity great again!! lol

Agree the thread is a barometer.

Will vote now.

Thanks

If it is indeed option 1, then shouldn't we have a say in who it is?

It won't be any good if its a divisive character. 

Chat section would be interesting. Why not all in the poll will not implemented?

I think theymos will transfer ownership to someone active in WO thread and you will also have a say in who should be it transferred to.


You mean adding "all of the above" option in poll? Why would you want it? That would be conflicting!

Edit: Or do you mean to implement everything listed in the poll? That would also be conflicting! Just read options and you will understand! Why ask such obvious questions? :-\

Having some regular user do it will just become too much for them (and then there's the issue of what they choose to remove or not and cries of censorship). Just assign some mods to the Speculation section since it doesn't have any mods at all or promote another Global. If that board has some specific mods they can probably keep on top of it.


Still don't understand why we should allow off topic postings. If people want to talk about something that isn't related to the wall charts then they can do it in any of the other relevant threads in Speculation.


I don't see any good reason why it should be allowed in there.



If it still counts towards post-count/activity removing signatures wont do much. People might even try exploit it by spamming in there (especially if we allow double posting).

Nice. Will change my vote and approve of option 1 now.

Official forum staff are bound by policies and a certain culture. I think that the WO people want some autonomy.


The point is to minimize what bitcointalk.org mods have to look at there.


It doesn't make rational sense for sig campaigns to pay for posts there, since posters there won't actually be advertising anything. (Maybe they're insufficiently rational, I'm not sure...)

I don't view activity farming as a big deal since you can only get 1 point/day regardless.

It probably would be better to prevent post counts from increasing there, but I can't easily do that without putting it in a dedicated section.

I appreciate your describing your rationale, and even your willingness to reconsider your original decision of locking the thread.

Regarding the sig campaign matter:

Maybe you conclude that I am biased because I have been using a sig campaign for nearly 2 years, but my signature campaign does not really affect the quantity or quality of my posts.. the reason is that I easily post above the monthly pay limit of the campaign, and I was posting about the same quantity and quality before I began participating in the sig campaign.

Personally, even though you frequently  hear people complaining about signature campaigns and sig campaign spammers, I really doubt that is the thrust of any kind of trolling or spamming problem in the wall observer thread.

Like Marcus_de_augustus argued earlier, the large majority of problem in the WO thread comes from newbie corporate shill type accounts that are coming in to derail the topic and to talk about bullshit in order to spread Bitcoin FUD, pump alts or just go all over the place with non-topical distractions.  

Sure, several of the participants in the thread have built some thick skin and tolerance to these kinds of trolls, but my point is that that kind of troll has historically been the main nuisance in the thread, rather than supposed sig campaign motivations - which seems to be a mostly non-evidentiary allegation that some members are just either ideologically opposed to sig campaigns or just don't like the fact tha some members (including myself) are getting paid for their posts (up to a certain amount until reaching the pay limit of the sig campaign).  

In other words, I think that that turning sig campaigns off in the thread is just punishing sig campaign participants without any real justification because there is hardly any evidence that they are the trolling problem.. at least historically in that particular thread.

Don't kill the thread.... it is way too much fun the way it is- and besides there is the whole rest of the forum for everything else... this is an old timers thread - and its got history man!

Everyone knows what they are getting with this thread - and if they don't then they soon do.

Where is Adam anyways?

ps... what is the most popular thread on this site?

Adam went full big blocks and bounced to that other forum.

As an aside, I suggest we give moderation authority to your monkey.

+1

Theymos does want it to continue - just not be a pain in the ass he needs to get monitored all the time.

We need to take it on, to save him the trouble.

So maybe we elect a new Adam, who gets to dep some modding duties out (it's too much for one person).  But the 'mod' term is fixed, so at least we get a say and don't get totalitarian rule.

I will re-post something I posted earlier, then deleted when I saw so many new WO threads pop up.

Here it is:

The WO thread is one of the longest running, most viewed threads on the entire net.

And it is so because of its anarchic nature.  It is also (surely) valuable to Bitcointalk. Anyone imposed who does not maintain it (roughly) as it has been, will kill it off.

Having Adam back is the only way to keep it exactly as it has been - and it looks like that cannot happen.
  
So, a compromise might be this (option 1 but we elect them):

A vote for a candidate known on the thread for a limited tenure - say a couple of years - and allow them to appoint a couple of deps of their own to support them when necessary, since if it continues as it was, it is a bloody hard job to keep up with (or go on holiday).

Candidates must be nominated by a minumum number of nominees who are way above newbie status.  

If possible the votes in any election should probably come from people who have at least posted here to a certain level to avoid the vote being skewed by an army of fake accounts, or hijacked by outside interests.  

Maybe it would be nice if voting was via a blockchain method of verified openness, too (ok, I can dream - but it would be cool)

So, if not Adam, then:

1. List of candidates apply within a fixed period to allow for qualifying under some minimum nomination procedure to be elected.

2. Election running for a reasonable period - a few of weeks to run from end of the nomination period based upon some minimal manifesto for each candidate.

3. Election for fixed term period of 'office'.

4. Ability of winner to appoint up to two deputies (of their choice) with a laissez fair attitude according to their manifesto, yet in keeping with the history of the thread

5. No interference from BTCT with thread, or chosen winner after election (or we are back to where we are now).


Would this not be reasonable and workable?  Yes, Theymos could just rescind it if it does not work to his liking - but I doubt he'd want to, it's a huge asset to BTCT to continue it.   It would also be fun and revitalise the WO thread - which should keep its name, as nonsensical as it is.

Any takers?

EDIT: And no, I don't want to do it.

did wo threat will be closed?? ???

It's one of this thread where you first read the OP then when you read a few last pages you don't remember what was the OP, or you wonder if you are still surfing the same thread

let it be !!! I vote for let it be as it is !!!

but thanks for the vote initiative ! it's great !

The wall observer thread is one of my favorites...very entertaining.  I hope it lives on  :)

Do nothing, it's fine as is. This thread evolved into what it is for a reason, to satisfy a want out there. If you pull the plug on this or make it more on-topic, there's not really anything left on bitcointalk for a large contingent of people who have nothing to do with scamcoin pumping.

I am very sad about the death of the second original wall observer thread. I hate the NWO (new world order... uhm i mean new wall observer)
 I would have voted for re-opening the old one and banning every offtopic poster if I was not too scared of getting banned for confirmation of some more or less offtopic stuff.

leave it as it is
May it´s possible to set a minimum requirement of member activity to prevent newbies or fake accounts to troll in it?

Do you even English, tho?

I agree, but I don't get what's the fuzz about?

If someone wants a heavily monitored thread, just make another one with strict rules. If there's people who enjoy a little chat what's the harm?

If option 1 or 3 occur, who are the candidates for new listed owner / mods? Someone please compile a list.

Leave the existing thread as it is, but with Theymos' relaxation of rules to reduce the load on bitcointalk mods.

Nothing else was wrong with it was there?

I guess we still need an owner/mod, but as long as that's another adam (a 'light touch' mod), I'm happy. I thought things went downhill when BCT mods started to attempt to keep things 'on-topic'.

Since you are the owner of the forum, I thought that you would just pick some person(s).

If you are not going to pick then probably the best way would be to find out who is willing to do it and then for a vote, and then maybe the top three vote getters would be the ones to do it.  The top vote getter would be the primary and the two others would be back ups?  Something like that?  

One year terms, as mentioned by Kurious?  or longer?  And then another vote?  Seems kind of chaotic, if we are just making up rules, I think that they owner has to describe the rules that would be acceptable, and then we can just vote.  Maybe you have to be at least a member to vote?  I am not sure how to stop people from coming from outside to spam the vote?

 Maybe one week for nominations and then one week for voting?  Anyone have a better idea?  

Maybe any person can nominate up to three persons including themselves?  But no person can actually be appointed, unless they confirm that they are willing to perform the moderation work...  Any person can do a little bit of campaigning, at least to write a post that describes their moderation philosophy, such as asserting that they would not delete post except if 1, 2 or 3 reason.. whatever their campaign slogan would be.

So no person would be eligible to be in the vote unless that person had actually said that s/he is willing to do it?

Is one week nomination period and one week vote and one year term acceptable to owners/mods? Otherwise let us know if you have guidelines and then we could attempt to follow the guidelines to come up with a list right?

Edit:  Actually, I thought about this a bit more, and probably if it were up to active users of the thread, a large number of them would probably believe that Killerpotleaf should become the owner of the thread, but it is not clear whether Killerpotleaf would want to do it or if Killerpotleaf is sufficiently unbitter to handle doing it?  Otherwise, maybe if Killerpotleaf were able to choose up to three appointments?  I don't know if Theymos or mods would find this as an acceptable option, but it would probably achieve considerable consensus amongst the more activist members in the WO thread.

I have spread the word to other 'WO' threads....

Now is the time for someone to step up.   Candidates required to be the new Adam... If we find a Mod we can put forward, we get our thread back

I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy.

Almost anyone could be a new Adam as moderator, I think. The colorful aspect would be harder:
moderate nothing, post hilarious random pics from 4chan, yell a bit, disappear for long stretches, be entirely bipolar chaotic, strongly advocate completely opposing views while sober/drunk/high ...

I loved the guy :)

I don't really see why they got their knickers in such a twist about topicness. And a lot of the 'off topic' stuff such as the E coin does have an impact on Bitcoin too.

The topicness should be abandoned, disable the post reporting somehow if the mods are annoyed by it, and whoever takes it on can trim the blatant spammy junk. Everything else should be fair game. Who or what is it harming?

It wasn't doing any harm, other than no one was responsible for it, so Theymos had to be - and he doesn't want to spend the time on it.

So, I guess he's saying 'please can someone take this on, it's a pain to have to keep an eye on it'

Indeed. We first need a nominating committee...

https://filearmy.s3.amazonaws.com/2017/01/31/bitcointrain.jpg

Honest thought: If people need someone to help moderate I would be willing to give it a shot. However I am highly partial to stupid pictures of trains and spacemen, so it might wind up devolving....

I find I'm partial to the graphics interchange format images that confirm my suspicions that it is indeed 'happening'.

Hurry and bring it back.

I don't read the general forums anymore, just the few threads I follow by posting on them and using the updated topics button.

Its empty now.  :)

OMG, dont kill the golden goose!
I think this is the most valuable thread on bitcointalk with all the different angles of where BTC is and where its heading.
Great charts and theories and discussions on whats relevant now and whats coming in near future.
I dont post a lot , but i sure read this one on a daily basis and i love it just the way it is...

If newbie shill accounts is the problem with spam and flood shit , then just elevate the ability to post in this golden thread to "Full member" or higher?

and the memes , i just loooove the memes...

Yup. There are many things that could be done to cut the majority of grief off at the legs.

It definitely needs to be preserved somehow. There's nothing else quite like it.

Yup, he was the perfect "moderator" for a thread like WO. Maybe some people saw that as a flaw, but for most of us it was its main "feature". There are plenty of other threads for strict on-topic specific subjects.

I want a thread where everyone can talk freely about what they consider is directly, indirectly or even loosely related to Bitcoin price speculation... without having to care if discussion touch other subjects that may or may not be of the interest of all the rest participants. As soon as the messages are not clearly offensive, repeatedly spammy, or completely disruptive I guess everything is ok and any participant know how to scroll down or use the ignore button.

Also, I have to recognise that I like to have a single moderately high traffic thread to watch during my long trading sessions without having to care of going all over the forum looking for interesting threads (which, let me tell you, there aren't that many).

I liked WO the way it was.

I have posted on all the other threads that Theymos has asked for anyone offering to Mod if either Option 1, or 3 is chosen.   So he is offering to open the thread if a mod (or team of mods) steps forward.

I am not sure it's a one man job, so maybe it can be shared, but so far only you and Erkallys have expressed any interest.  Someone has to put their name to Theymos and gain some consensus with old WO thread-lovers.  I don't blame anyone for thinking it's a lot of work, but a team could probably do it.

I can offer occasional help, but I run a business and travel too, so I can't commit to a fixed permanent rota.  I am of course in the European time zone however, so splitting the modding up might mean we can have a loose rota covering different times of day.

It doesn't have to be so arduous. Let's face it, Adam would disappear for weeks on end and then turn up rolling drunk.

It could work well on an agreed light touch, low intervention, just keeping an eye basis?

Most people would want it to be fairly hands off - I persoanlly don't want an authoritarian hand with an ego doing it, it's not what made the WO what it was.

Even trolls have to be tolerated to keep it as it was - but it could maybe be tweaked it to make it easier in some simple ways.

Thoughts?

I don't understand why people like option 1.

First of all, Adam didn't moderate at all (afaik)... He was probably one of the most moderated posters in the WO thread, with his drunken late night rants needing cleaned up and whatnot. Unless that's the point... LOL.

If we simply transfer ownership to someone else, at some point in the future we will be at this juncture again. That doesn't make any sense to me.

I voted for options 3 and 2 (although I would clearly prefer 3) but, afterwards, Theymos said something in the line that if we chose option 1 it would be up to the moderator to do (or don't) do its job and that Bitcointalk moderators would not moderate anything on the thread on the basis of offtopic. And that the report button will clearly indicate that (ie: it will only be considered offtopic if the appointed local moderator chose to).

That would make option 1 also acceptable IF the appointed moderator is someone that will only intervene in clear disruptions of the thread, heavy spam and blatant offenses to other members. Maybe that's why people is chosing option 1.

I would also choose that option if I knew, in advance, who the moderator will be and what his "moderating style" would be.

Personally I liked the "moderation" style (or lack thereof) of Adam and anyone who shares it has my support.

I like option 1, but with reservations. Which are, essentially only if it's someone I trust - take a look at the new threads?  The longest is run with strict controls that would kill the 'real' WO thread.

The reason we are here is that Adam went AWOL and no one was moderating the thread.  If someone is, then it can continue.

Theymos is Pontious Pilate - he just wants to see a solution and wash his hands of it.

Option 1 (or 3) will provide one and we get our thread back. Sure, we may be back here again, but that is not a reason to do nothing.

I was writing mine while you were composing yours, but generally I agree.

Option 1 is fine if I know who it is and I agree, Option 3 is a committee and therefore cumbersome, but a mix of the two may work.

I hope a candidate, or candidates will emerge - and I am sure Theymos will agree to a poll, if it makes sense.  He doesn't want to kill the thread, just have a way of letting it run without being a pain in the ass.

The consensus seems to be we want it to continue, we want it to be roughly the same.  Ok - so we must offer Theymos something who will rid him of having to police it, so it's not his problem.

Can we?

May the spirit of Adam live on...

Adam was AWOL when he was active and posting. ;)


I chose 3. It seems to be a longer term solution than 1 at least.

This is fine and may be the solution, but we still need 'acceptable' volunteers / candidates.

Don't get me wrong, I just want the thread back - but we need to offer Theymos an exit strategy.

if mods are needed, i have the time to do it.

I miss all this!  :'( :'( :'(

This is the best solution in my opinion. As far as I've understood, all the problem is because someone (some few) have a nervous finger and is clicking to report without reason.
SO JUST DISABLE THE REPORT BUTTON.
Let the local mod do his job and trim the junk.

Everybody will be happy, unless of course Theymos elect to be moderator a control-freak-mad-king-psycho as Meuh6879.

The only exception for this CLEARLY OFFENSIVE restriction could be the cockroach, that guy is so funny defending PMs while we're all getting rich with BTC. He's another "feature" from that thread.

A moderator could take a largely hands-off approach to moderating, but the report button seems a necessity in order for the moderator to account for what could be a problem that is perceived by other user(s).

A bit more than a year ago, there seem to have been a lot of notlambchop accounts that were muddying the thread, but that seems to be less of a problem than it was, and I think that moderators took care of that issue.. largely.

 - anyhow, the report button could be very helpful for a mod to be able to nip in the bud some of those ridiculous distracting posts that were coming from shill accounts that were merely intending to clutter and frustrate participation in the thread.

I think we can assume that all OPs of offshoot Wall Observers would be candidates.

I'll throw my hat into the ring if there's a shortage though.

Well, I could definitely handle the showing up rolling drunk. In fact one of my side jobs at DefCon is to find stupid drunk young hackers in the casinos and get them back to their hotels safe instead of being projected on the 20 foot high walls of the Alexis fornicating with a My Little Pony Plush.

These things happen.

I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff. But yes, we would need a team of people to do it. Sounds like we have two and maybe you, we'd need eight.

Those are my thoughts.

An old school DefCon'er that promises a light touch moderation? Great, got my vote!

Guys, theymos has explicitly asked for a list of candidates so... can you guys please add your name to the list?

He has not yet stated how the election would be nor if there will be one or many listed owners/mods, but I guess more than one individual would be needed and that we will have some say (maybe even another poll?) on the election.

So anyone willing to help please quote and add your name to the list and, if you want, a description of your moderation style or whatever you feel appropiate. Also feel free to change/modify your own entry (no need to be a single line/paragraph, be as verbose as you want), this is just an example:

lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

yefi - "I'll throw my hat into the ring if there's a shortage though"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

kurious - "The only point of continuing the old WO is to not change is too much.  It was a pain at times, but it's anarchy was its character" - "I am prepared to be part of a mod team - but can't commit to more.  I will offer to help, but if Theymos wants a candidate to lead this, I don't think I am suitable."

Thats a very active thread, it would be alot for one person to be totally responsible for it but if the OP is awol then doesnt take much for an improvement. 

I must have high tolerance because Ive seen far worse, depends how badly we rate emotional posts of yippe its gone up.  If thats spam then yea its spammy but thats a kind of gauge to sentiment.   Ditto when people moan so much, btc is never going up again then you know people have given up trying and its some use to know if people somehow view 2000 negatively.   

Going on that its probably going to require two threads.   One actual commentary on price movements,  attempts to label or characterise the market gait.   Another thread for purely people happy its gone up and, to the moon type spam

Cross threading

If we build an Off Topic -> Chat Section would it be able to have a Chartbuddy  posting a price every hour without contributing to the total post count that seems like a viable solution to the spam issue.

Moderation wise, more than one mod would probably need to be recruited to moderate in that thread presuming the traffic it gets.


Other points
Value wise the Backlink data to the Wall Street Observer Thread is significant and reaches outside the forum as a distinct starting point or reference
http://smallseotools.com/backlink-checker/
WSO acts as a Barometer of sentiment and acts as an echoing chamber of Sober Second thought (Senate), and a social thread not all forum threads need to be on the point with technical numbers and data, mindless garbage works for the media we call it celebrity news.
If the question was do people see value in the thread, then we already answered that from the discussion we see here defending it.

On Anarchy
Bitcoin is a Wild West we do need to remember the roots of it, the moderators might be challenged dealing with it but the viewers and readership is organic and stretches beyond the forum as part of the identity of Bitcoin and acts as a place to vent it out so it is productive in the end, we have to factor in Bitcoin culture not just moderation when looking at these type of threads so maintaining its existence in my opinion is valuable for multiple reasons.

surely with 6000+ BTC a bot could be programmed to moderate 90% of the shit.

leaving the 'mods' just 10% of actual 'work'

Who should be placed on that list of people? There are a lot of people in there that are definitely not material for that 'position'. Maybe, Jimbo?

What 6k BTC? The answer is still not 'yes' to your suggestion. There's no way that the current AIs are advanced enough to do something like that. BTCT does have at least 1 bot that kills some of the spam, but it does not have any type of learning built into it.

At this point I guess it is just a list of CANDIDATES.

Even YOU could put your name on the list if you wish to enjoy the lulz of being one of the least voted for the "position" (assuming there is a voting or some sort of community feedback requested about the self-appointed candidates).

It's just a preliminary list, as requested by Theymos.

First step is to know who would be WILLING to help. Everyone can propose any names... but the candidates need to take a step forward and explicitly express their willingness... And it will be way easier if they just put their name in the list.

I dont know who all should be on the list, but i know who should not. Anyone who voted for the 5th choice should be disqualified right away ;D

Confirmed.

Jimbo seems to be happy on Meuh's new thread. I went on to hint to him he should put himself up for the role, but he hasn't said anything.

People do need to put themselves forward, of course, but Theymos seems to have agreed by asking for candidates that the thread regulars will need to approve.

As to what the thread should be, I think it only will work if it looks like and feels like the old one.  There are already 'no nonsense' WO threads emerging and as long as some want them, I am sure they will survive and there is no reason why they should not.  Theymos just wants the original thread to be watched over in a way that doesn't use too much of his moderation resources.

The only point of continuing the old WO is to not change is too much.  It was a pain at times, but its anarchy was its character.

Put your name on the list. Is not that hard, just go quote the message with the list of candidates and add:

kurious - "The only point of continuing the old WO is to not change is too much.  It was a pain at times, but it's anarchy was its character"

... Or whatever you think would define your "moderation style".

I am not going to actively run the list, just wanted to have the ball started.

Disable signatures and activity numbers on posts, to reduce the incentive for mindless garbage filling up neverending threads and driving long-term members away from the once-useful forum.

I am prepared to be part of a mod team - but can't commit to more.  I will offer to help, but if Theymos wants a candidate to lead this, I don't think I am suitable.

Ironically I am sort of suspicious of anyone who would want to be 'The Candidate' as I have a distrust of anyone who seeks power, because they are usually just the sort of person who I don't want to have it.

EDIT: that said, the list you have so far has no one I would object to on it. I am happy to offer help to any / all of them. I can do European time zone early shift as I always read forums early every morning witb my coffee to catch up.

Yep. That's why I am asking you to put your name on the list if you are willing to help in any way. You can clearly state in the list any restriction on your willingness to help. Let's get this rolling.

OK, since you are helpfully compiling it, consider me added as a helper.  I can hardly advocate the cause of saving the WO and refuse to help.

'Happy to help any team on a part time basis if it will keep the WO going in a fashion as close to its original anarchic form as possible'

Guys, theymos has explicitly asked for a list of candidates so... can you guys please add your name to the list?

He has not yet stated how the election would be nor if there will be one or many listed owners/mods, but I guess more than one individual would be needed and that we will have some say (maybe even another poll?) on the election.

So anyone willing to help please quote and add your name to the list and, if you want, a description of your moderation style or whatever you feel appropiate. Also feel free to change/modify your own entry (no need to be a single line/paragraph, be as verbose as you want), this is just an example:

lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

yefi - "I'll throw my hat into the ring if there's a shortage though"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

kurious - "The only point of continuing the old WO is to not change is too much.  It was a pain at times, but it's anarchy was its character" - "I am prepared to be part of a mod team - but can't commit to more.  I will offer to help, but if Theymos wants a candidate to lead this, I don't think I am suitable."

Better shorter.

Now I would like to also see in the list marcus_agustus, Bitcoinnewmagazine, infofront, etc... but it is up to them to express their willingness to help by putting their names on the list.

I posted on their WO threads when Theymos was seeking candidates, might need to give 'em a nudge as if the WO is revived their own threads may fade in any case.

Guys, theymos has explicitly asked for a list of candidates so... can you guys please add your name to the list?

He has not yet stated how the election would be nor if there will be one or many listed owners/mods, but I guess more than one individual would be needed and that we will have some say (maybe even another poll?) on the election.

So anyone willing to help please quote and add your name to the list and, if you want, a description of your moderation style or whatever you feel appropiate. Also feel free to change/modify your own entry (no need to be a single line/paragraph, be as verbose as you want), this is just an example:

lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

yefi - "I'll throw my hat into the ring if there's a shortage though"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

kurious - "'Happy to help any team on a part time basis if it will keep the WO going in a fashion as close to its original anarchic form as possible'"

Erkallys - "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy."


P.S.: Missed a candidate (Erkallys) that already expressed his willingness to help. Added him to the list. But please, candidates add yourselves, thanks :)

Thank you for seeing me. About your requests :  I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long.

If you add yourself, bitserve, then that is six volunteers.

Maybe this group could share the job.

If a vote is needed (and it looks like option 1 is winning) then maybe the group stand as one entity and the vote can be opened up to anyone else who wants to stand against it, or anyone within the group who would rather stand alone, of course?

We can have a chat about some essential agreement on how we would moderate collectively - which we could publish (and then how we organise any rota, so there would not be too many moderating at the same time).

Also a loose system for sorting out any disagreements on collective policy / replacing a mod with a new one if needs be over time (majority vote of existing mods?).

Jr members are allowed to vote - confirmed. Just casted my vote - happens to be the most popular options: #1 and #3

Been here for some time and honestly, cannot imagine better go-to source of latest info about the market. I agree, there is a lot of crap to sift through, however, isn't all internet like this?

God bless the WO!

If option one allows for a group to moderate the thread, I'd be happy to be a part as long as the permissive spirit of the thread is upheld. 

If option one doesn't allow for a group, then I was thinking the OP could employ a mod bot. Select members could pm the bot with a #postid to report or remove content. The OP could limit or revoke this right for a user if they were abusing it.


That's part of the problem. Those best able to moderate may not wish to seek approval. I'd put forward a number of people like Elwar, Gentlemand, etc...

I agree wholeheartedly with 'keeping the spirit' and I would be happy with a party I trusted to do just that.  You, Elwar and Gentlemand would be the sorts that I reckon would be fine (no particular agenda, clear thinkers and a sense of humour), and I would happily offer to help / dep to any of you.  I think it IS a lot for one person, so if it has to be one, but he can appoint deps - it would help.

I think a loose group would ensure a wider range of views approaching a rough consensus with the thread itself and (importantly) it would curb any tendency towards megalomania - the binding ethos should be to simply keep the spirit of the old thread.  Which means we would necessarily have to tolerate any Stolfi or Lambchop types even if they did piss us off.

Either that or we just vote for a random crazy pot-smoking drunk to ensure chaos rules and see what happens.

The people that ought to have power generally don't want it. Isn't it always the way.

And it is a truism that the converse is true, also.

BlindMayorBitcorn has asked to be added to the list.

I think this is mostly true, especially for Stolfi.

Notlambchop, on the other hand, did cross some lines, which was when he would post distracting and irrelevant bullshit.

These moderating ideas can be tough - even though I agree that the default should remain a kind of tolerance, especially if there is arguable substance.

By the way, group moderating seems like a bit of a mess - but if you can think of a way to make it work, then it could be a decent experiment.

if there is to be a group of people who do it, those guys need to come up with some type of constitution that they're all happy enough with.

it could descend into chaos if one person is taking against a post's theme when it's fine with everyone else.

I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread.

I wouldn't want the responsibility of being the sole moderator. A small team moderation approach seems like the best idea to me, as long as the mods have a reasonably similar vision for the thread, and what's appropriate. That said, we'd need to agree on some rules. There are fairly strict rules listed in Adam's OP, but they were very loosely enforced. I'd rather see very relaxed rules that are strictly enforced.

I don't post there because it's always been a garbage bin to me. There is good info but it's usually buried.

I went with 2, 3 or 5 :) haha. 5 wouldn't help out btctalk mods tho.

We might want to consider just sticking with the multiple forked versions. Moderation by committee could well result in a mess of deleted posts and ruin the free-wheeling spirit of the very thing we're trying to save.

I think we should try the continuance - the other threads can survive and beat it, if it isn't any good.

Which is a good way to ensure it is like the original as much as possible.

At least now we have some candidates.

I think we're all wary of picking our own dictator, so assuming we agree it can't be one person, what's next?

An open election to pick members of one team, or teams line up around their own team agreement to be voted on as a team?

Theymos might run a poll if we ask him.

And we can always vote for the candidates who don't want to over-police the thread - after all it's what is unique about it, it would surely be popular?

Unlinke BlindMayorBitcoin, I am not fond of those forks. For me the most important is to keep the thread running. It is legendary and a piece of history, and I would like very much to see it alive again. Forks can live beside it, but shall not replace it.

The best to me is that the team choose itself its members, from a common agreement of them, because, from my point of view, there is no better team that one from which members do like working together.

A team would also be an interesting experiment, so that would be fine for me.

I agree with you, I think we must try.

Suggestion:

Coalescing around a 'constitution' for a group or groups with a minimum moderator size to be maintained (say a minimum of three) then the group, or different groups publishes a short (say max 200 words) proposed moderation policy 'statement' to be stickied at the top of the thread if it's voted in.

Within the winning group membership can be changed (but to no less than three) by a majority vote within the group to change its membership.

Should there be a fixed term?  Ideally, yes - but is it getting too complicated, or is it a sensible thing to have to be re-elected every now and then as a reminder that it's not their property forever?

Happy to debate - but what is likely to work?

Now that we are starting to get a good amount of candidates stepping forward, some clarifications:

1) Theymos hasn't clearly stated if he wants one single owner/moderator, an owner responsible for a team moderators or a team of moderators.

2) He has only requested that "someone" composes a list of CANDIDATES, but again it is not clear if he wants a preliminary list of candidates or if he wants the WO community to already give him a list of consensuated candidates.

3) So at this point we are just doing a preliminary list of anyone who would be willing to be owner/moderator once the thread gets unlocked.

4) It seems that Theymos wants to give us a saying on how the thread will be run. He just don't want it to be a PITA for him or for official bitcointalk moderators. This is very reasonable.

5) It also seems that in both voting options that could finally win, there will be a policy change that would result in BTCTK moderators to completely ignore any reports based on "Offtopic" leaving that decision to WO local moderators. The report button will also inform of that. Ie: No reporting on the basis of "offtopic".

6) If I am not wrong, most or even all of candidates atm seem to share the idea of moderating lightly, trying to maintain WO more or less as it was. If any candidate thinks otherwise I would request that they please state so. That way everybody knows what to expect and if there is a community voting/election people could exercise an informed choice.

7) I requested that candidates add his name to the list themselves. As noone seems to be doing it I will try to keep the list updated, but only once per day. Atm only addition is BlindMayorBitcorn, if there is more please state it in this thread. Also it would be advisable that candidates edit their entry expressing what their moderation style will be.

8 Personally, I would like to have an additional multiple-choice poll so that people can really support/veto the candidates. But I suppose it is up to Theymos to say if he will allow us to do that.

9) Another personal opinion I have is that a "comitte" would probably be too much hassle and probably inoperative. An structure with one listed owner responsible for the thread and a team of moderators to support him in his duty would probably be the most efficient. BUt, again, it is up to Theymos to decide that.

10) I think the best is that we debate what we want to do, and then just ask Theymos if it is ok for him. I don't think he is the very least interested on the drama, just solutions.

P.S.: Also, some organization is great but let's just take into account that we are not electing the next Pope :)

So you would like to turn it into a formal and periodical election ? That would be "fun", but not sure if that would be the best solution to be efficient.

I rather thought about a "founders group" that would agree about this "constitution" you talked about, and would stick to it. This group would be better for me to ensure moderation. In this manner, in my opinion there should be for now the original members, and only them, at least at the beginning. If there is no reported problems and moderation goes fine, I see no reason why they should be replaced, don't you think so ? Supreme court is a good exemple I think, and in case of major fault or something like that, President theymos would remove the concerned person. At that moment there could be an election, or a nomination by theymos if you want to stay on Supreme Court theme.

What do you think of that ?

I think that the best idea would be an election amongst the volunteers - and the highest vote getter would get the position, subject to Theymos approving.  Then if the other volunteers want to work with the highest vote getter, then that person could appoint them to help when s/he is going to be absent or unavailable for such duties.

Less of a mess, and surely any winner of the vote would already understand the thread culture to sufficiently identify what constitutes loose, rather than strict moderation.

excellent points. couldn't agree more

That is also a solution, but the election would need to get organised by theymos, that would save us from a useless one. So I guess until we have a clarification from him, any proposal is just pure speculation.

You're right, of course.

But Theymos has played Pontious Pilate and said 'Ok - tell me what you guys want?'

He seems to be saying if we can solve it, he will grant it. So... we cannot be apathetic, we have to offer that solution, or lose the thread.

Can the most anarchic thread on the forum (ironically) find a sensible, acceptable and consensual solution?  I think we could, but only if we all positively try to.

Be quite a thing if we could.   No one is really falling out here, we have a prize to seize - which is simply the status quo.

If any group of people can come together and form a pitch I can roughly agree with, I will stand aside, or offer help accordingly, because I want the WO to continue.

I have probably checked it almost every day for the past few years. I am sure I am not alone.

So for you theymos is waiting for us to propose him a solution ? So then let's reunite and all the candidates - as well as anyone wanting to give it's opinion on the situation - and see what do to.

For once I think JJG is talking sense.

And I also think presenting a solution as a fait accompli to Theymos is preferable to asking him.

Is it possible for the candidates to gather online (away from here) to hammer something out together?  Even if it only a statement of policy for starters.

As indicated in my above post, if theymos is looking for an already decided consensus rather than the permission to organise something let's do that then. A Telegram group would be suitable to meet I think. Not sure if everyone uses it though.

I already PMd Bitserve to ask if he wanted to organise it, but if you can find a way - go for it and invite all the candidates

So I created a Telegram group and PMd all you five. Now I will wait for you all to come so that we can discuss there.

if it is option 1 then who decides on the person?
think just open it as it was,warn and then ban anyone who goes off-topic on purpose
use this topic as a some sort of a mix of a  barometer and a honeytrap

I think two relatively simple rules will eliminate a lot of the chaff and spam without impacting the 'sensible off-topicness':

1) you need to be Hero or Legendary member or member joined before 2014 to post in WO

2) posts in WO do not add to a poster's Activity Count

This will essentially make it somewhat exclusive for posters who have already earned their stripes elsewhere in the forum, i.e. veterans. And it reflects the make-up and effective purposeful useage of the thread as it stands, long-time posters who are occasionally or regularly checking in on this thread,posting price news, thoughts opinions and sometimes loosely related bitcoin or personal material.

The spamming and attempts at disruption are usually from new accounts who covet the attention provided by the thread. Bashing the Off-topic button seems to be their latest tactic, since that is how they have been shut-out most recently (classic DDOS attack is to exhaust the most effective defence). People might not know of the huge job Lauda has done in the past cleaning up after NotLambChop and shutting out that entity's attack on the WO. The current Off-topic attack is most likely a response to that ... there has probably been collateral damage and Lauda has collected some undeserved ill-will for that previous defence.

NB: I'm not available to mod WO ... but I think you need to get it sorted out quickly, it's not that big of deal if you enforce those two simple rules above you could even put a drunk and his monkey in charge.  :D

Input appreciated, Marcus.

I think hero and above is a little severe, but valid suggestions.

And if we could have a drunk and a monkey, with our thread back - I am in ;)

Why don't we add the cockroach to the list???
kkkkkkk just kidding, can you imagine the advocate of holocaust installing gas chambers in every corner of the thread?

So far this guy is my candidate!

IMO the chat section seems interesting. it is pretty much impossible to discuss on the wall observer thread without sort of going off topic sometimes with all the memes and stuff. but w/e theymos does i'm fine with, the problem with getting someone to self moderate is the possibility of censorship.

I just lost it on another thread with him after this:


So, in this case I agree on censorship.  Some things are about humanity and morality.  r0ach defiles these simple concepts.

'Holocaust 2.0 coming soon.'

WTF?

NO!
I'm a full member participating in WO since I was a Newbie and it's been the thread I've most participated, asked and responded in this whole forum.
Turn it in a closed elite club is throwing away A LOT of people who can aggregate. Just to be clear, the guy who's compiling the list and helping most is bitserve, another Full Member just like me.

Guys, theymos has explicitly asked for a list of candidates so... can you guys please add your name to the list?

He has not yet stated how the election would be nor if there will be one or many listed owners/mods, but I guess more than one individual would be needed and that we will have some say (maybe even another poll?) on the election.

So anyone willing to help please quote and add your name to the list and, if you want, a description of your moderation style or whatever you feel appropiate. Also feel free to change/modify your own entry (no need to be a single line/paragraph, be as verbose as you want), this is just an example:

lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

yefi - "I'll throw my hat into the ring if there's a shortage though"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

kurious - "'Happy to help any team on a part time basis if it will keep the WO going in a fashion as close to its original anarchic form as possible'"

Erkallys - "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy." - "I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long."

BlindMayorBitcorn - [No stated "style of moderation" AFAIK. Please update]

infofront - "I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread. "



Added BlindMayorBitcorn and infofront. Remember anyone can add themselves and also update the info.

He's a clown, his opinions are just to remember us how diverse -for the good and for the evil - this world is.

Quite frankly I don't agree with you and bitserve appointing yourselves somehow as 'moderator selectors' or 'moderator selection process deciders' or whatever you want to call the bullshit elitist process bullies and gatekeepers you have self-appointed yourselves as ...  that really seems like elitist bullshit to me.

So piss off newbie and take your offensive response attitude with you.

The idea of "exclusive" is fairly intriguing, and would likely take a way a lot of the problems - including taxation of moderation - even though there may still be some bought accounts or some of those kinds of possible shills that would come about from time to time.. but likely a lot more rarely with the more senior accounts.

Personally, I am of the inclination that if the WO thread were Full member and above, then there would need to be few other restrictions - and then who ever is the moderator would be quite a bit less taxed, and could exercise discretion when s/he thinks that posters have gone too far... which likely not be very common... and almost as if we wouldn't need a moderator in such circumstances... except these more extreme situations.


In other words, if we go in the exclusive direction, I would suggest either member or Full member and above (and leaning more towards Full member and above)... for participation and voting rights in the thread or related to the thread.

I dig this as an idea. It's by far the most read thread and that's a great way of preserving its freewheeling nature whilst also exterminating a vast amount of the shite at the point of origin and improving its content.

It would instantly reduce the workload by a great deal.

I'd loosen the member requirements though to senior or perhaps full. There are plenty of comparative newcomers with good stuff to offer.

I know younglings may be narked by being excluded but they have elsewhere to play around. I suppose the only issue would be rival threads created by peons that would create the same amount of work again for mods so it would be back to square one to an extent.

You already have you closed elite-club, so YOU PISS OFF and go there have fun with your sheepy friends who pretend to think you're a smart and lovely person. Adam's WO never was a closed-elite club, but you and Meuh seem to be happy with yours, so don't take your time to come here talk this kind of bullshit, be restrict to your club, I promise you I'll never step in there anyway.

I am not quite sure where your angriness come from, but let's just clarify that I haven't appointed anything myself.

I have just tried the get the ball rolling on the list compilation and nothing else. Anyone can (and should) update the list themselves. You have a strange sense of what is decision power or elitist bullshit.

It's just a list of people that have expressed their willingness to help with the moderation of the thread. That's all about it. Geez.

But that's why this discussion exists. It's been clearly stated that the thread's a goner unless something is done.

I don't think it should be elites, but certain standards put in place from the off would ensure its survival.

The problem stated by theymos is that a lot of unrelated posts were being reported to moderators, but I saw nowhere he describing that those off-topic were posted by newbies, Jr Members, Members, Full Members and Senior Members ONLY. Maybe what pissed him off was the alt shill and nazi r0ach (look, he's a Legendary :o :o :o !).
If theymos states it's statistically proven that the problem is related to lower badges I'll grab my stuff and go away, so far Marcus and yourself are arguing enforced by data YOU DO NOT KNOW and he's clearly moved by hate and scorn.

... you were the first to post an accusation of elitism (against me) ... you'll need to prove that first or leave the real arguments to people who know what they are talking about and have been around long enough to see every trick in the book.

(I suspect you might simply be trying to derail a civil discussion here so that WO never opens again).

I assume you weren't around for the peak noob apocalypse propagated by one maniac.

And I did say that I thought pre 2014 Heroes and Legends is excessive.

With the Anti Semite you are completely correct. If I was in charge of the thread every single one of its posts would be replaced with this - http://www.mdais.org/en/  and I'd sign up its email address for this - https://www.jdate.com/singles/lgbt-gay/

Just because I disagree with your methods or arguments doesn't make me "angry" ... you maybe projecting.

More likely you are getting sucked into deepercoldewallets attempts to create a shit storm vortex around this process, look where the accusations began.

What Marcus is suggesting is not unreasonable - because it has the potential to eliminate a lot of the need to moderate, and surely lower ranking members could still read the WO thread and there are other places that they could participate in order to rank-up.

I agree with you that it is likely not necessary to make the thread as exclusive that Marcus is suggesting - but I don't see any reason to allow posting rights to newbie and Jr member accounts (and I would even extend this to "member") - especially if there are goals to 1) take a way a lot of moderating responsibilities, 2) let the thread go as mostly unmoderated 3) allow all kinds of bullshit topics that would not otherwise be allowed in the speculation section of the forum - which is part of the WO thread history.

Personally, I don't have any problem with full member and above, but my consideration is nothing personal, and anyone below full member should recognize that nothing personal is meant by excluding them.  On the other hand, I believe that leaving the matter to hero and legendary levels, would be overkill and potentially cause way to much sterilizing of the thread - which is a considerable departure from it's history. 


One more point (on the other hand... I know it is my third hand), if all ranks are allowed to participate, of course we get the benefits of the community and newbie input - but at the same time, moderators are likely going to have to moderate a lot harder.. and deal with such clutter, yet most moderators are likely going to give more benefit of the doubt to higher ranking accounts, anyhow, even if some high ranking accounts (such as roach) are known for a particularly high level of offense, vile and off-topicness and would likely be subject to more "censorship" than an overwhelming majority of the accounts of a similar rank... in other words, accounts like roach seem to be the exception rather than the rule  and most accounts of a similar rank are not even close to his tendencies in the seemingly censorable direction.

Ok, let's go:


To me it's pretty clear you want WO to turn into a Legendary-closed club.
How is it possible to be misunderstood?

Surely, I believe all Legendaries and Heroes can agree with that. It won't harm you.

I'd do a research and bring you here all the Non-high-ranked posts that have aggregated and contributed to make Wall Observer what it is known to be - probably the most reliable Bitcoin debate you can find in internet, far more than /r Unlimited fans - but I'm sure it would flood this thread and make theymos angry. So, you can do that by yourself, the thread is still open to consult. Be honest to your conscience and look there if only Legendaries and Heroes helped building the largest thread in BTCT history...

Straight off the bat you are twisting/lying to 'prove' your point. This is why it is pointless arguing with propagandists like you, there is no 'arguing' or honest debate for elucidation or problem solving, it is simply an all for show spewing of opinions to warp readers minds.

Anyone can read I said Hero or Legendary and in the warped view you present of my words to the world (to yourself?) it becomes "Legendary-closed club". It is nearly impossible to misunderstand yet you did immediately ... and then put those words in my mouth.

NB: I would consider extending that condition to include Full members (is that the one below Hero)? if it could be shown they behave themselves in the WO archives.

Maybe it's coming from the fact that you did not include Marcus fragile ego in the list of candidates.

Anyway good you did not. He showed up himself and what he thinks the WO should be. IMO a diametrically opposing view of what theymos kindly proposes by ASKING ALL OF US how it could be, considering the options.

Uh, and let's not forget ONLY NEWBIES are not allowed to vote, so I'll just shut up here and let the poll express what it will be.

LOL YOU EDITED IT!!!!
You can state you wrote anything, YOU'RE EDITING YOUR POSTS.
Moderators could acces the log, this " or member joined before 2014to post in WO" was added later!

You seem to be getting way too fucking emotional about this.  Did you even read what I wrote? I suggested full members and above, personally.

Furthermore, I understand the situation on a personal level, and I probably am in the top 5 quantity-wise posters in the WO thread.

I had been posting in that thread from newbie, and yeah, I have more than 80% of my total forum posts in that thread.

Your suggestion that someone is biased in their perspective merely because they might benefit is ridiculous and seems to be without merit.  Theymos and mods are presenting us with a particular situation and problem and at the same time allowing us to contribute input into possible solutions, and even though Marcus's suggestion is not likely to be fully adopted, it still remains a decent way to consider possible ways to address the problem and allow for various resolutions that will allow the continuation of the WO thread in a decent approximation of its former self - while addressing some moderation concerns.

There are senior members, too, but it seems that going down to full member would be reasonable to include.

Come on!
I wrote Legendary-only but it was implicit I was referring to the context of "only-high-ranked". If it was not I wouldn't be stupid to quote the whole sentence.

Dude, I understood your point about adding Full Members to the "few-selected-list". My point is that theymos never stated the problem was low-ranked being reported to moderators.
Until he comes here and says "You Newbies, Jr Members, Members, Full Members and Senior Members are the problem here! You're not allowed to mix with the forum deities who receive Marcus respect!" what Marcus and all those who defend high-ranks-posting-only are saying is based on assumptions. You assume that MAYBE the thread was closed because low-ranks are sabotaging. Ok, show me where theymos stated this!

Have anyone realised that Hero's and Legendary's have achieved that rank for being "prolific" posters?

Wouldn't it be better to do it based on account creation? Something like you can't post to WO if you haven't been registered in the forum for at least 3 or 4 years.

Now seriously... Theymos has already stated that signatures won't show up on WO and that, just maybe, the post count won't increase. Isn't that enough to stop most of the nonsense posts? No signature campaign earning nor activity farming should do wonders.

I would understand newbie accounts not being able to post as they would only need a couple of weeks to achieve the rank and it avoids someone just creating new accounts on the go to keep spamming the thread. Other than that seems too much a restriction to me... but if that's what most people want, why not?

I am not gonna cry for that :)

... oh boy, a noob spamming a WO-related thread with made-up controversies, machine-gun quote-spam posting and dragging posters into irrelevant side-arguments ::) ... how original, where have we seen that before I wonder?

No wonder deepcolderwallet is shilling for noob accounts because he's just going to create another one when he gets kick-banned for excessive disruption.

Because your account is pretty old and it won't affect you!
But came into Bitcoin last year and I've been participating in this thread almost DAILY! That is such a source of information, the same way I've been adding some REAL WALL OBSERVATIONS to debate. Is it fair to rip off people like me, who are SERIOUSLY coming to Bitcoin recently? How is it contributing to our so dreamed S-curve of adoption? Do you really want to turn my retirement savings into an "ONLY-THE-OLD-COMRADES" club?

I was being ironic (see the "Now seriously..." part) because I find this discussion completely absurd. I have already stated I am against that sort of restriction. The only one that I would think reasonable is restricting *newbie* accounts from posting... and even that is not something I really like.

This is an interesting idea that deserves some serious consideration ...

Ok, try it.
You can say whatever you want based on the fact you arrived here first, but I'm here FOR REAL, I want to participate and I'll fight till the end to have my right to do this. I don't need to create another account, and I WON'T DO THAT. If theymos decides I don't deserve here that's okay, there are other sources of knowledge. But I am sure his opinion diverts from yours.

and this is why, of late, i don't post much...

dear god guys, take a breath.

The history of WO attacks are based on newbie accounts that were getting created by a VERY well-resourced entity. They were able to create up to 10 (or more) newbie accounts daily from seperate IP addresses that would spam the board and WO thread especially with pedophilia referenced posts, old-man porn, alt-coin discussion (mostly ETH) and other crap just to intentionally crap up the place and discourage new bitcoiners from reading useful information about pricing expectations.

The solution to that attack was to ping the newbie accounts for the Off-topic posts and then ban those accounts from the forum. They kept creating new accounts from separate IP addresses (do you know how much that costs?) and attacking WO ... you can ask Lauda who was moderating at the time to verify these facts.

Then when the Off-topic defence eventually proved effective then the attackers are now bashing the Off-Topic button to get regular users posts deleted, posts which are not disruptive or turn the place into a dump. Now the Off-Topic defence is getting attacked and the forum moderators are sick of defending those attacks we find ourselves locked out of WO (and arguing against potentially the same attackers trying to keep newbies disruption possibilities, disrupt this discussion and shut down the thread altogether).

Be clear of what you're accusing me of!

I know where you are going. I remember those attacks, in fact I wasn't participating in WO at that time because it was a mess with all those "flooding posts" and the like. I don't care scrolling down a posts that I am uninterested in, but it was a pain having to scroll FULL PAGES full of ascii spam or whatever.

If that's what you want to prevent it would probably be enough with restricting *newbie* (the rank) accounts from posting. Creating new accounts from different IP's is cheap as fuck (more so when this board accepts TOR so you don't even need your own proxies)... farming their activity to even become Jr Member is expensive.

Also, I don't remember seeing that sort of attack (on a considerable scale) for.. maybe since a year ago?

I don't think you stop much more of that attack by also restricting Jr Member, Members, or Full members. And for the few ones that could happen, banning would do wonders (and it's more costly for the attacker).

Any restriction over "newbie" account seems overkill and unjustified to me. Maybe I am wrong.

It's clear Marcus argument is not the reason theymos locked the thread!
I assume I was not around when that happened, is it enough reason to accuse me of being as evil as Jihan Wu himself?
Does the fact of someone's account being 6 months old say that they're this forum's enemies?
Should they not be allowed to participate in important threads?
Anyway I've been advocating to YES, PLEASE, PREVENT FORUM ATTACKS FROM NEWBIES. But stop here. A Jr Member can contribute and aggregate as I did myself and every Legendary was once a Jr Member.

If the thread's going to be restricted to member rank, I think another poll needs to be run on that. I'd probably be ok with the cut-off at full member.


It does seem like trying to give a grandness to proceedings where there is none.


Thank you for the invitation, but I'd rather not join a private group. If you're going to formalize some moderation policy for WO I think you have to base its values on those of its members. Maybe along the lines of:

If a post is funny, informative, intelligent or interesting it should never be removed unless it meets the subjective test of being sufficiently hateful, disgusting, misinformative or disruptive by the members of the WO.

The moderators seek to act in the consensus of the WO by making judgments on behalf of its members.

Just because it is *only* a list of candidates, that doesn't mean we need to put every idiot from WO on it.

The best kind of help is removing this thread altogether.

That's a horrible and uneducated idea. If someone wanted to spam it, it would be fairly trivial to purchase an army of old accounts.

The more you say, the less sense you make. Theymos left certain matters open, and we are attempting to engage in a dialogue to clarify how to meaningfully address the issues.  



Exaggeration, no?



More exaggerations and attempts to personalize.


There is a difference between assumptions and logic, and even understanding some of the facts regarding the history of the thread.



Theymos's words already speak for themselves in terms of the thinking that the thread was causing a lot of moderator work.

I am glad that you made that point, yefi.  Probably better to just have that kind of conversation in the open...

Put a two post limit per day per user on the WO thread. That might incentivize a better signal to noise ratio.

*also no newbie accounts

A two post limit would make intelligent conversation difficult. It would push traffic into one of the alt-walls.

I won't be joining a Telegroup either. Honestly, I just volunteered to delete the Hitler moustaches.  ::)

Monkey is AWOL

+1

That's not a bad start, would support this.  

It's vague enough to allow reasonable flexibility and puts working for a rough consensus on behalf of the WO crowd at its heart.

I think the idea of having mods is to just to continue the forum but curb excess and the really extreme crap.  

And if we have some, then we don't need to restrict the ability to post too harshly.  Restrictions on number of posts etc is unnecessary IMO.  It was working roughly OK and with mods it can continue to do so.

We only have a few people who have stepped forward, so how do we get a small team of mods from there in an uncomplicated fashion and try to agree a set of values such as this?

That would also be fine for me.

However, restricting the post number and the rank is not necessary according to me. Someone that joined just recently may be a lot more on-topic that an old account that has been sold. Especially, if there is a moderation team, this is in order to keep the calm, following loose rules, and avoid having too strict rules a bit Apartheid-like.

Rockets trains and memes are a tradition there, will they be lost?

Nope.  I can't see anyone who loves the WO wanting to not have rockets, trains and memes.  It's a bit of a red line for me, it's not the WO without fun and nonsense.

Option 1 wins the poll. This is fine with me. It's technically very easy; I already finished the technical changes. Please come to rough agreement on a single listed owner. Once one exists, I will unlock the thread.

If you want to do some complicated organizational structure, that's fine, but it's probably best to figure it out later, since I won't unlock the thread until someone is taking responsibility for it.

It's not technically possible to have more than one moderator of a thread, or to apply additional posting restrictions to the thread, or to prevent posts from counting in that thread, unless I create a new section for it.

Here are the votes. Parentheses mean that the person has never posted in the WO thread.

Option 1
marcus_of_augustus
Syke
notme
iCEBREAKER
Gyrsur
Spaceman_Spiff
Wekkel
edgar
EAL
d5000
STT
Searing
arklan
yefi
icey
xhomerx10
DieJohnny
gentlemand
AlexGR
freedomno1
Hunyadi
redsn0w
explorer
Karartma1
criptix
JayJuanGee
PoolMinor
lightfoot
owlcatz
Torque
Miz4r
chennan
kurious
keewee
Denker
petahashminer
troleybüs
xyzzy099
ssmc2
Paashaas
m0gliE
sirazimuth
Globb0
Dotto
ShroomsKit_Disgrace
actmyname
InvoKing
User705
julian071
harrymmmm
Muhammed Zakir
soullyG
Digigami
_javi_
BlackFlag
RayX12
dave00
FractalUniverse
eXpl0sive
Stevenirving
siggy
cmacwiz
_Django05_
CoinHeavy
cgt99
Todorius
fichtn12345
MNDan
DrMsEr
machasm
Biro Bob
Scofield
discobean
ivomm
hodl_2015
Icygreen
QuantumMiner
(Quickseller)
(killyou72)
(coralreefer)
(Machina_US)
(LeGaulois)
(Mongwapogi)
(Maskedman)
(khufuking)

Option 3
Dabs
iCEBREAKER
jbreher
edgar
qwk
EAL
arklan
yefi
DieJohnny
freedomno1
explorer
criptix
Dafar
Torque
chennan
kurious
keewee
troleybüs
infofront
BlindMayorBitcorn
ibminer
Karpeles
Holliday
bones261
Globb0
Dotto
empowering
European Central Bank
julian071
Chainsaw
cafucafucafu
soullyG
TeeBone
DARKHOLDER
Iranus
flipperfish
stan.distortion
Last of the V8s
Stevenirving
_Django05_
CoinHeavy
kludzins
ðºÞæ
bitserve
fichtn12345
deepcolderwallet
discobean
Pajulapoiss
Icygreen
QuantumMiner
Italiacoin
SalmonBraker
(minifrij)
(botany)
(Quickseller)
(whywefight)
(U2)
(LeGaulois)
(magneto)
(BlackMambaPH)

Option 2
conspirosphere.tk
Dabs
jbreher
stereotype
edgar
EAL
arklan
yefi
DieJohnny
AlexGR
freedomno1
explorer
DaRude
mymenace
CoinCube
troleybüs
infofront
silverfuture
Karpeles
Globb0
Dotto
Chainsaw
starmman
soullyG
hv_
TeeBone
MrBig
flipperfish
stan.distortion
FractalUniverse
Last of the V8s
Stevenirving
fallinglantern
bitserve
dasein
hodl_2015
Icygreen
(Joel_Jantsen)
(U2)
(LeGaulois)
(Guajiro)

Option 5
Soros Shorts
EAL
DieJohnny
Meuh6879
freedomno1
petahashminer
troleybüs
ssmc2
m0gliE
veleten
YourMother
actmyname
mindrust
Lesbian Cow
Muttley
Hawkix
_javi_
MrBig
Coinnosaurus
stan.distortion
lemmyK
DrMsEr
Scofield
0rganic
degxtra1
(Quickseller)
(dida)
(Wapinter)
(Joel_Jantsen)
(U2)
(killyou72)
(LeGaulois)
(TheQuin)
(FlamingFingers)
(jbah01)

Option 4
OgNasty
notme
iCEBREAKER
edgar
smooth
EAL
Chef Ramsay
d5000
STT
DieJohnny
chennan
troleybüs
pooya87
Karpeles
birr
Muhammed Zakir
Pente
FractalUniverse
cmacwiz
droizs
Biro Bob
(botany)
(LeGaulois)
(Maskedman)
(TheQuin)
(jbah01)

Based on what Theymos is saying, it seems most practical to attempt to finish nominations within a few days or a week at most, and thereafter create a thread to conduct a vote - maybe a 3-4 days voting period.  Someone who is not running could probably run the vote.

I'm sure any voting would end up picking a decent candidate that would be in touch with thread culture, and if that person believes s/he needs help in the thread, s/he can elicit such help - even though it seems that there may be some inability to give actual powers to anyone beyond the owner of the thread, unless the owner of the thread shared his/her log-in credentials or a administrative "fake" account was created for such persons and the password only known by the elected moderator(s).

I am not sure if there should be concerns about getting stuck with a tyrant, because we would be voting for the person, but if there is a feeling to allow for a continued quasi-democratic process, we may want to agree to 1 year terms or something reasonable like that.   It sounds like Theymos would agree to a variety of frameworks, as long as the thread is set up with one owner and is not taxing mod resources too heavily... and it seems that even if Theymos would allow some administrative account, some one person is going to have to end up taking responsibility for the whole way that the thread is administered - so one point person.

Has someone started keeping a list of potential candidates? Can people nominate themselves or do you have to necessarily nominate someone else or both? Who gets to vote? Why?

---

In other words: Easier said than done.

Appreciate all the work you're putting into reopening the WO thread, Theymos.  Glad you didn't take the easiest route and decide to leave it locked.

So, bumping it up, it looks like we have the following names for potential moderator:


lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

yefi - "I'll throw my hat into the ring if there's a shortage though"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

kurious - "'Happy to help any team on a part time basis if it will keep the WO going in a fashion as close to its original anarchic form as possible'"

Erkallys - "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy." - "I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long."

BlindMayorBitcorn - [No stated "style of moderation" AFAIK. Please update]

infofront - "I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread. "

Lauda - "I could create one, and would if someone were to get something like ChartBuddy running again." <-- from another thread but related to this one. Proof below.




 This looks about right - 5% leaders, 95% followers.  Do we need to wait longer for volunteers to come forward or can we open a voting thread now?  Maybe we need a voting thread on how long to wait?
Who's gonna jump the shark?

A few guys have been posting potential candidates in this thread, who seem to be willing to run.  Some guys nominated themselves and some nominated others; however, of course it would seem to be a waste of energies if we were to include someone in the vote who has not confirmed that s/he is willing to run and carry out the duties and responsibilities.

There are some guys trying to structure this, such as Kurious, but I don't think that all of the questions have been answered yet in terms of who gets to vote.

Maybe there could be a requirement, that you have to have posted in the WO thread at least 5 times or something like that?  Or maybe that you have to be at least a member?  You are correct, Lauda, that some of that can be controversial, and in that regard, sometimes the election committee would not be the same ones who are running, or at least should not be.

I would not mind being on an election committee, and say that I am not running, but maybe the election committee would be three peeps, and then hopefully would just agree on rules in which others would run and then establish a thread owner for a year or something and then possibly revisit the matter a year later, if needed?  Or maybe the thread owner could become permanent and only subject to the removal of Theymos and/or global mods?

Anyone think that a three member election committee might work of folks who are not running?  Then we have to do a quickie vote on the election committee, possibly?  Then the election committee communicates the hopefully reasonable rules.. and maybe all of this is done in the open in another thread, at least the voting portion... the discussion could probably take place in this thread, no?

Well we did have a bunch of people who came forward - I assume Theymos will pop up a poll and add names if they are quick enough to say they want to be on the list.

Since all the other WO threads (including rpietila's) were asked if anyone wanted it, the list of those who do is not so large and no one can say they didn't know.

Bring it on, pronto I say.

My vote goes to anyone who will offer a light touch and possesses more of a sense of humour than of self-importance.

I propose we start with one framework. 

We set up an election committee with three or more persons who must be at least a full member and have at least 5 posts in the WO thread to be on the election committee and who are not running for the position, and then go from there. 

I don't mind being on such election committee because I am not interested in running for the position.  Anyone else who does not plan to run that would not mind being on the election committee?  or is there a better idea how to carry this whole thing out within the next couple of weeks?

I probably have the necessary erratic mental health condition , prone to erratic outbursts and have a proclivity for alcohol,  an obsession with BTC , and a completely bonkers life, I gots me a sense of humour- so I wouldn't be too heavy handed -  I don't give too much of a fuck - I can dedicate the time to it- as I am pretty immersed in Cryptocurrency already but also I don't care as long as its not he whose name we dare not mention "La......."

So I guess I will throw my hat in - happy to do it, not fussed either though.

Depends on if you want someone cranky or not tbh.

(Also I do kind of love this thread)

Boom. Done. There's my vote.

Edit: Please strike my name from the list. There are enough solid candidates now. Lightfoot and Yefi and Empowering are all excellent choices IMHO.

Latest version of potential mods


lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

yefi - "I'll throw my hat into the ring if there's a shortage though"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

kurious - "'Happy to help any team on a part time basis if it will keep the WO going in a fashion as close to its original anarchic form as possible'"

Erkallys - "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy." - "I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long."

BlindMayorBitcorn - [No stated "style of moderation" AFAIK. Please update]

infofront - "I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread. "

Lauda - "I could create one, and would if someone were to get something like ChartBuddy running again." <-- from another thread but related to this one. edit: Proof in previous post.

empowering - "I probably have the necessary erratic mental health condition..." "...So I guess I will throw my hat in - happy to do it, not fussed either though."

Some pretty good ideas on this thread. Amazing ones in fact. Question: Can we lock a thread to no newbies, no post count, no sig campaigns, multiple moderators, must post a spaceman picture every 30 days, etc?

You can take me out, too - I was hoping to be part of a team, I don't fancy the solo job.

I agree with BlindMayorBitcorn there is already a list with some great candidates, with Empowering added to it it looks like we have a few decent options.  

May the candidate with the least ego, the greatest love of dodgy memes, trains, rockets and alcohol as well as a devotion to the spirit of the WO thread win.

Can we have a vote please, Theymos?

It seems that if we could just get through the process of electing a thread owner, then hopefully we would chose a thread owner who would be sufficiently in line with the thread culture and be able to decide the extent to which any of those kinds of rules would be practical in order to meet the laissez-faire history of the thread and/or whether a committee might be helpful.

You mean someone who would be tolerant of verbose and overly long posts, JJG?

I am all for going forward with the vote, but it seems that there were a few more names that had been on the possible candidates list at one time or another... so seems that at least we want to make sure that the list of candidates is complete -

In that regard, we may may want to take one or two days to solidify the list and then go forward with the vote - and maybe if Theymos or a Mod conducted the vote, like you suggested, then we would not have to suffer through any of the possible encumbrances of an election committee?

Great idea.  Let's get caught upon style versus substance.

I would imagine that if a thread owner is concerned about style or get's caught up in concerns about personality, that could become distracting and/or problematic - but some of that would be within the discretion of the owner, I suppose.. but could stifle participation, too.

For example, one of the rules of the Meuh6879 WO thread, there is an issue about length of posts and citing of posts, which I think members, besides myself, consider to be problematic.  But other posters, consider that rule to be reasonable.. go figure..  members think differently and express themselves differently.

 The updated list in no particular order:


lightfoot (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=148567) - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

arklan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44129) - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

Erkallys (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=393895)- "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy." - "I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long."

infofront (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=41175)- "I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread."

Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) - "I could create one, and would if someone were to get something like ChartBuddy running again." <-- from another thread but related to this one.

empowering (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=191697) - "I probably have the necessary erratic mental health condition..." "...So I guess I will throw my hat in - happy to do it, not fussed either though."


edit: removed yefi (at yefi's request)

I'm going to bow out and pledge my support for lightfoot, infofront, arklan, Erkallys and empowering.

Yefi, you are a gentleman.

Respect.

infofront has showed he can handle the task with mastery by what he's been doing in his HF thread.
I support a moderator who can analyze what's a offensive content and has no need to unleash the nervous finger on delete button.
infofront (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=41175) bro you have my support.

We have now a pretty nice set of candidates for new owner of WO. And theymos has already said that as soon as one is elected/designed he will unlock the thread.

I don't see any reason to extend the resolution farther than this week. We could give until wednesday to see if there are any more candidates or withdrawals (though it would be better there isn't more of the latter or we risk drying out of candidates and having to start from scratch) then ask Theymos to run the poll from wednesday to sunday... and we will all be happy hodlers of classic WO again before next week :)

TL;DR: Let's get back WO asap.

That sounds like a good plan.. for timeline, etc, unless someone has some better proposal?

  So cut off for new candidates or withdrawals of candidacy will be 12noon UT on Wednesday or you want to go until 12midnight UT?  I think noon is good enough.

i'd think we'd all see it by noon. those who are active enough to atter, that is.

Noon then. There's plenty of time for whomever cares about WO and wants to also step up.

I am not sure if it should be a one or a multiple-choice poll, nor if the results should be public during (current results) / after (who voted which choice) the election or not.

Unless someone has some strong opinion about this that he want to express, I guess we could leave that details up to Theymos.

I hope that we are mostly being non-controversial in these election-related suggestions, and maybe it is best that only non-candidates make these kinds of election process related suggestions? 

But, noon sounds good for a deadline for nominations, candidate statements(declarations) and anyone who may want to withdraw.. though it would be nice to have at least three candidates - and I don't really see a problem if more  people nominate themselves - even though it would likely end up diluting the vote count.

 I think that Theymos's  precedent of allowing multiple votes and publicizing the results (who voted for what) is acceptable, because it ends up being a personal decision whether to vote for more than  one or to put all of your vote on just one candidate...

 I understand that sometimes when voting for personal candidates, there might end up being posturing - and maybe in that regard, it could be better to keep the vote results private - even though keeping the vote private has drawbacks too (accusations of irregularities and favoritism, blah blah blah), so maybe just publishing the votes would be a better way forward and allowing for up to three votes would be good, too, even though in the end, only the highest vote getter would win... but having runner ups could help to inform whether the results may be used for other purposes in terms of administration of the thread or in case the first place falls through.

... a succession plan is a worthwhile thought. Perhaps it could be TheDreadPirateRoberts model where the current mod chooses his successor and simply hands over the WO admin account keys to the next DreadPirateRoberts when they are over it?

In fact it would be kind of cool if the WO admin had an account name like DreadPirateRoberts or variant ...  ;D ... but what should we call the monkey then?

I don't really disagree with the idea - but a problem in a quasi-anonymous forum is that an actual appointment process might not be as fair as just having either a periodic vote (such as every year) or just having theymos reassign the thread under his own discretion.  I imagine that Theymos is only flexible so long as we seem to be working matters out - but as soon as our decentralized bullshit turns into a bunch of in-fighting that resembles the scaling debate, then he probably experiences less healthy inclinations to capital punish the whole situation within the discretion of ownership.

By the way, Marcus, I thought that at one point your name was in the running?.. or maybe at some point you bowed out? It seemed at one point, someone made the argument that anyone who had started a competing WO thread had implicitly expressed interest in moderating the original WO thread?

He declared he was not available:


And all the 'alt threads' were invited to put candidates forward - even rpietila's.

Those who wanted to throw their hats in have had ample chance.

Now it's time to narrow it down to one.

We must wait to see if Theymos will put up a new poll, unless he expects us to have a show of hands, of course.

Which is another controversial thing, on which consensus isn't trivial. Optimally theymos would just put a hard deadline and say "make up your mind". Thanks for keeping a list!

I've seen the names due to xhomerx10. You are correct on the latter part, people who do not confirm that they want to or at least would be willing to, shouldn't be put on a list.

I was thinking more in the lines of senior member or even hero member IMO. Someone who hasn't been here for at least a year doesn't really fully understand: 1) The forum rules (unless he/she/it spent most of their time learning this). 2) The "WO thread etiquette".

What I was wondering about was whether theymos could give multiple people "ownership" of the thread (sorry if I have missed this post). This would make this somewhat easier for the person that ends up doing it.

That seems like a decent idea. Being allowed to vote for yourself is a double edged sword (if the votes are public that is).

That could work, but who votes on the election committee? It does not seem like we would be making progress.

With all due respect, Lauda, are you trying to boycott the reopening of WO or are you really like that?

I don't think I've voted (the poll ended before I did), but I am in favor of option one (and I think I have actually suggested it in the past, somewhere, to someone). What seems to be the issue?

Maybe I was wrong in my feeling.

No, you didn't vote, but its your right not to do it, that's irrelevant.

The "issue" is that you expressed a lot of concerns that have already been addressed in this same thread. Some of them by theymos himself. Others are not that clear but there's no need to create a controversy over them unless there's some real justification.

An "election committee" does not vote/elect the winner but just supervise the process of the election, we would probably don't need that if we just hand the list of candidates to theymos and he runs the poll (making theymos some sort of election comitte himself). That's the better way to legitimize the process without unnecesary delays.

Unless Theymos states otherwise all users except newbies will vote, same as they did for current poll about the future of the thread. He has already stated that any restriction over who could post on the thread is not technically possible at the moment without creating a new section for it. So that's not on the table.

Also there's absolutely no problem in any candidate voting for himself (in fact it would be somewhat logical and advisable) or for anyone else for the lulz. Or not voting altogether.

He has also stated that we will have to chose ONE owner and that it is not technically possible to have additional moderators for the thread.

You were. Whilst WO is often garbage due to lack of the moderation, some things are very nice to read (e.g. Jimbo's morning posts and BTM runs).

You see that I'm responding to a post that is somewhat old now, right? I didn't want to ignore it, regardless of what was posted afterwards.

I disagree with the voting policy, but okay.

"Technically not possible" with the existing SMF code you mean? No surprise there.

---

Okay, so when is this poll going to happen?

Some people proposed tomorrow at noon. theymos seems to be wanting for us to organise it all, so waiting for a confirmation might be lost time. Considering someday or another we will have to make it, that would be fine for me.

I am touched BlindMayorBitcorn.... as usual you are a gentleman and a scholar !

thanks

Lets get this wall observer back on the road !

It should not be too overly problematic to wait one more day, until 12 noon GMT on Wednesday (about 24 hours from now, as I type) for candidates to either bow in or bow out or to allow for any other clarifications of the process, if needed and sometimes members may not even log in for a day or two or even weeks, and we likely have already established a sufficient quorum and adequate airing of whatever WO thread related matters through some of the back and forth in this thread.  Furthermore, even if some members may be reasonably anxious to re-open the WO thread, it does not seem that there is really any bad faith or impracticality to allowing one more day for any clarifications concerning candidates or process, as we already mentioned a few times in this thread.

Theymos has not yet agreed to run the actual poll that we are now proposing with the latest list of candidates, but it would not necessarily be a deal-breaker if Theymos were not to chime in before noon tomorrow, even though personally, it seems better for him or another moderator to run the poll, and to decide any potentially controversial matters about how the poll is run, number of votes members get, who are the candidates, how did the vote come out, whether to publish the results and any other material matters - such as answering any questions about what is technically feasible or even administratively within his preferences.  

If Theymos does not run the poll, then the next best option would be someone who is actively posting in this conversation but is not running for the "owner" position to link a polling thread to this thread and to run the election, and to give reasonable time to vote, such as 4 days, as was proposed earlier, and attempt to be as transparent and reasonable about whatever polling process is followed in order that the results or the process is not controverted.  

Maybe if there were a tie in the vote outcome (which does not seem too likely, if the poll were run in a way similar to the last poll in which members have the ability to change their vote prior to the counting of the votes), then there could be a runoff vote that takes place in a much shorter period of time, such as 24 hours of open polls for that run-off part?

I may have been the first person to directly mentioned the possibility of an election committee, but it seems whatever process we have been describing in this thread may be sufficient and even a suggestion that Theymos runs such a proposed poll would both speed up any timeline and remove whatever areas are currently potentially left to be controverted, making an election committee unnecessary - except maybe in the future if theymos wants to make a term or a re-election rather than just making the ownership of the thread permanent without any re-elections unless the new owner would become incapacitated, unavailable or in some other way problematic for the forum, including complaints from members.  

 Current list of candidates for moderator of the Wall Observer thread:

---

lightfoot (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=148567) - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

arklan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44129) - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

Erkallys (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=393895)- "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy." - "I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long."

infofront (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=41175)- "I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread."

Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) - "I could create one, and would if someone were to get something like ChartBuddy running again." <-- from another thread but related to this one.

empowering (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=191697) - "I probably have the necessary erratic mental health condition..." "...So I guess I will throw my hat in - happy to do it, not fussed either though."

---

 Anyone wishing to be added or removed from the list of candidates, please indicate your intention in this thread before July 5^th @ 1159hours GMT

hey everyone.. where is the new thread ??

So far the best one is this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1993010

 Hearing neither objections nor new submissions, polling begins today.

Voting thread is here: edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2004215

Let's use my poll instead: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2004227.0