What to do with the wall observer thread?

[marcus_of_augustus]

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.

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

[1714974613]

1714974613

[1714974613]

1714974613

[1714974613]

1714974613

[1714974613]

1714974613

[deepcolderwallet]

... 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.

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.

[arklan]

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

dear god guys, take a breath.

[marcus_of_augustus]

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

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).

[deepcolderwallet]

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

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!

[bitserve]

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

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).

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.

[deepcolderwallet]

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.

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.

[yefi]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[Lauda]

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

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

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.

The best kind of help is removing this thread altogether.

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.

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

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.

[JayJuanGee]

Adam's WO never was a closed-elite club

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 !).
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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.  

Until he comes here and says "You Newbies, Jr Members, Members, Full Members and Senior Members are the problem here!

Exaggeration, no?

You're not allowed to mix with the forum deities who receive Marcus respect!"

More exaggerations and attempts to personalize.

what Marcus and all those who defend high-ranks-posting-only are saying is based on assumptions.

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

You assume that MAYBE the thread was closed because low-ranks are sabotaging. Ok, show me where theymos stated this!

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

[JayJuanGee]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

[Holliday]

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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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

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. 

[empowering]

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?

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

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

Monkey is AWOL

[kurious]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

+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?

[Erkallys]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

+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.

[Globb0]

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

[kurious]

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.

[theymos]

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)

[JayJuanGee]

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.

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.