What to do with the wall observer thread?

[kurious]

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.

[DARKHOLDER]

did wo threat will be closed??

[LeGaulois]

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

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

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.

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

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

[coralreefer]

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

[greenlion]

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.

[fichtn12345]

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.

[BlackFlag]

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?

[deepcolderwallet]

did wo threat will be closed??

Do you even English, tho?

[Pajulapoiss]

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.

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?

[theymos]

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

[harrymmmm]

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'.

[JayJuanGee]

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

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.

[kurious]

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

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

[kurious]

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'.

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

[Erkallys]

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'.

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.

[harrymmmm]

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'.

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

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

[gentlemand]

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'.

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?

[kurious]

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'.

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'

[lightfoot]

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...



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....