ghost-threads: a good idea?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

First of all: I think that this kind of threads should be in the comments and suggestions folder, but that seems to be a little read place, so I put it here.

In the "Need a politics or debates folder" thread, I suggested the following (somewhat edited and greatly expanded):

-----
Why not have it so that whenever a thread is created, there is also a "ghost-thread" created. The thread creator would then be moderator of his own thread, and have the ability to move over - but nothing else - any posts that he deems off-topic, offensive, not adhering to to the discussions limitations set out in the starting post, or just plain non-sense. The ghost-threads would be available for all to see through a link from the original thread. This would hold threads on-topic, and still not be any censorship. The workload and time would be spread out on all members, and everyone could monitor their own threads as much or little as they wish.

The "not adhering to to the discussions limitations set out in the starting post" needs some explanation. I think that a thread starter should be able to set out for-the-sake-of-the discussion limitations, in order to keep the threadjackers in check. An example: If the thread starter posts a topic like this: "If Smart wins the WC MS event, what endorsements will he be able to sign?", then a response like "bah, he won´t win it!" would be on topic, bur disregarding the explicit limitations. In order to stop bait-and-switch tactics, only explicit discussion limitations set out in the first post should be valid reason for ghosting a post.

All powers should come with checks and balances, and in order to ghost a post the thread starter must identify which reasons for ghosting a post he thinks apply. These choices should be done by ticking off a list, and the be visible to everyone who chooses to read the ghosted post.

Also, the person who wrote a ghosted post should be able to appeal that ghosting. This should be done by ticking an "I appeal" button at the post. Then, the moderators and top-ten in the reputation points list should be able to vote. If an outright majority of those eligble to vote support the appeal, the post gets reinstated, and the thread-starter doing the ghosting gets dinged a few rep points. Repeat offences should make it inpossible to do ghosting for a limited amount of time. If an outright majority of those eligble to vote support the ghosting, the appealing poster gets dinged a few rep points for unjustified appeal. Repeat instances of unjustified appeal should make it inpossible to appeal for a limited amount of time. In other cases, the ghosting should stand, and no other consequences.
-------


Jeff responded:
-----
I'm coming more to the position that it should all just stay in the Water Cooler. I sympathise with Peter's complaint and think the idea of a ghost thread might be good, though I'm concerned about thread owners censoring material if they're beginning to lose an argument!

As much as I'd like the trolls to stick to a designated cesspool, I don't think they'd be polite enough to do that - if they were that nice, they wouldn't be trolls. I still think the best thing to do with trolls is to ignore them, maybe after throwing a short, sharp "you're a jerk/troll" at them. Not that I have a perfect record in this regard!-------

My response to Jeff:
Since a ghosting would only move a post, not alter the content or readability, it would not be a useful censoring tool. If used as such, it would bite back at the one who does the unjustified ghosting.

It is in the nature of trolls to appear where they are not wanted, but my suggestion would put them back where they belong.

I am perfectly aware that this entails some programming and other work on the part of Craig, but I still think that the end result would make for a better fencing101.

I am ready for now, and please vote on the poll.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[frenzl]

most people won't bother with it and it will take more time for craig or whoever has to write or install it. there nothing too bad about a good thread jscking everyonce in a while anyway.

[oiuyt]

If such a feature were enabled I wouldn't use it in "my" threads. I would routinely want to read with ghosted posts enabled. Threaddrift is NOT a bad thing. There are any number of threads on fencingforum which, one can tell through cross-reference, are considerably less interesting due to the, in my opinion, overly active moderators. So many threads there that have clearly been massively pruned to "stay on topic." Does it detract? Not much. I'd still rather see the nonsense included than the sanitized threads that remain.

Perhaps added functionality for branching a thread into multiple new transpotted threads. That could be useful. The Charlotte Nationals thread has a number of recent posts about the 2004-2005 FIE calendar that should be separate (not that I'm close to blameless for that drift, mind you). Being able to designate certain posts as part of a new thread could be useful. Or we could just leave it the way that it is, which works. We seem to be able to create new threads when required for continued off-topic dicussion most of the time anyway.

Back to the topic, I don't view ghosting as censoring. I view it as removing some of the interesting "flavor" bits. Abusive posts can already be removed by the moderators. The fact that they (Craig and Gav through most of the site) have a light hand is a good thing. I'd prefer that we DIDN'T turn everyone into a moderator of his/her threads. I'd prefer if we didn't consider threads that we start to be "ours." Threads are owned by the board, let them grow and take whatever shape the board, as a collective, chooses for them.

-B :)

[Inquartata]

I concur with both frenzl and oiuyt. Needlessly complex, many if not most people wouldn't use it, and it might result in reduced clarity. ( For instance if one post is removed as off-topic but not before others made answers to it which were deemed ON topic. ) Just too much trouble to read two parallel threads on every subject and still try to keep the context clear, IMO

[noodle]

i believe the best middle-answer would be a system like one found on slashdot. its already halfway implemented. there might be a VB package that does it, i dunno. the gist of what it is is this:
you can use reputation to move the value of a particular post up or down and others can view threads based on restrictions, like when they look at threads, they only view posts with 2 or more points in order to weed out the trolling comments and such. the ones with not enough points are minimized into a single link which lets you view them at your own risk. you can also label them things like informative, funny, offtopic, flamebait, etc.. the options on slashdot allow you to automatically add points to groups, like all funny posts get an automatic +2 so you can view only them if you want.