- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: Achronos
You're right - an automated system cannot make value judgements about the content of posts... but it can use information about an account to determine a different thing: trust. It is entirely possible for the system to make an educated guess as to how "trusted" you are. By this, I mean it can look at the sum of your history here and decide "hey, this guy is a troublemaker" or "hey this guy gets warned every once in a while, but is otherwise okay" or "this guy is squeaky clean".
Remember, the purpose would be to try and make sure that someone can't escape their past, even if they create a new account. The tricky part is to make sure it is newbie friendly - that real new users aren't screwed by protections against spammers. However, I have an idea about that, but I'll keep that to myself for now.
Admittedly, the math is quite complex, but that's why it is in prototype state right now, just collecting data. I hope that eventually we'll be able to tweak it to be fair, and then turn the consequences on. Of course, it is entirely possible that it won't ever work well enough to my satisfaction, but we won't know unless we collect the data. :)
Posted by: Sir Fragula
I'm not sure I can see how such an automated system could be made, unless you're grouping users into bad and not bad camps, rather than bad, average and good. Otherwise you need to make a value call on the contribution of each member that just can't be done fairly by algorithm unless you've got some nifty sentient code running here - and I don't think the Soul counts.
Then again, do you really need to differentiate between anything more than bad and not bad? I suppose if you want to stop people from just opening another account then you do.
I don't see how your comments here address Sir Fragula's observations. Exactly how often a user gets tagged as 'trouble' is still, in the last analysis, linked to the subjective judgement of those policing the site?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a valuable idea and you admit openly that it is currently in an early prototype stage. Still, I just doubt such a system would ever work beyond a simple and crude ladder of 'often warned' to 'never warned'. In other words... surely a significant margin for interpretation and human error would still exist implicity.
I've just been sat thinking about this a little longer (i'm trying to avoid work and it seems like as good a way of doing that as any)
Anyway, the more I think about this the more I am becoming convinced that the issue here might be to reassess and redefine the fundamental character of the Bungie community. That is to say, if one is to proceed in a rational way to argue for a vibrant community, one must be by definition concerned with the politics of that community. In fact, central to the arguments presented in this thread (and many others I read on a regular basis) is a focus not on exactly how the 'community' is, or what the 'community' represents, but rather how to encourage good behaviour within a vaguely defined and generally accepted idea of a really existing community. Too terrible to contemplate is the notion that this community might in reality be more of figment of the imagination of a loose group of individuals; referred to in a kind of cathartic fashion in order to further legitimise and perpetuate its existence in their own minds
Like I say, I think more fundamental questions need to be asked. What is this 'community' we are all so concerned with enriching? For whom does it serve a purpose? Why?
These are interesting questions in my view, and ones worth pursuing.
Let us examine this existing state of affairs with reference to a point many bring up with consistent passion; that of 'good behaviour'. Many members of the community (which we shall assume here to be represented by those individuals whom have created a Bungie.net account) are most concerned with the various dramas that unfold in the forums. These concerned members, appalled by the conduct of users whom 'flame', 'troll' and commit a whole host of other crimes including 'poor spelling' and 'Bungie bashing', converge regularly to discuss these terrible actions and the detrimental effect they have on this 'community'. What if, despite the best intentions of such observers, those who commit such actions don't understand and cannot see this 'community' of which such individuals speak? Does this, perhaps, prove they have some form of delusion? Have they missed some fundamental point regarding their place here on these forums? If so... what?
That some members feel the masses on the forums are missing the point is well illustrated by this talk of 'rewards'. I think this stinks of a kind of cynical move towards coercive methods of further enforcing the 'idea of community' in the minds of those whom don't seem to be able to grasp it. As many have correctly pointed out... no doubt the 'community' would grow... at least ostensibly. One can imagine the excitement produced by chit-chat of 'rewards' for being a good Bungie.net member; witness the explosion in 'nice, polite posts'; although I'm sure spelling shall remain an issue for the more discerning members. This is the kind of false belief in two-dimensional incentives and 'performance-based' politics that so superficially glosses over substantive issues in too many of our own institutions elsewhere.... but that's a different story.
What I'm trying to say is that in order to truly address this issue one has to acknowledge and live with the fact that a) this 'community' might actually be rather small and opaque as things stand and b) that your idea of how it should function and what is acceptable shall more likely than not sound absurd to many of the other users of this Bungie.net website... whom share rather a different perspective on matters... if any real perspective at all (and here I refer to those kids who can't spell who so trouble many of the more 'serious' users)
Policing the obvious examples of rude behaviour and unnecessary trolling etc is one thing, attempting to infuse values into others minds through highlighting 'oustanding behaviour' is entirely another.
[Edited on 03.27.2007 4:29 AM PDT]