I hope there are some psychologists here. So far, I've been thinking about how to realize a democracy in an anonymous BBS in order for self-moderation and thus less requirements of moderators, which could act against what the users want. So far, everything I've thought about would either end back in the way things were before with traditional moderation or in total and utter anarchy.
Is there any sane way one could realize democratic moderation with people like those in /sci/? And how about people like in /lounge/ or even worse, /b/?
You can get user moderation on 4chan by installing the 4watch Greasemonkey script, which talks to a database about posts other people have marked as spam/rulebreaking/etc. One of the main things people have complained about are those who mark things as spam just because they don't like them.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-21 6:43
>>4
You raise a valid point. Is there any intelligent way to fix that other than requiring multiple votes?
Well, you would want each person to be "enlightened," no? At least to be humbled, and realize what they don't know, and how their world and minds work. The solution is to enlighten yourself first, so that you could recognize whether they are "enlightened."
1. Read books.
2. Be curious about everything.
3. Love life, and yourself, and know that you will never know everything. Or even half of everything. Knowing everything is like encompassing infinity with your mind, it can't even be approached.
Research DMT and Ayahuasca. dmt-nexus.com
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-02 2:47
>>5
The recent versions have an option to allow people to mark posts/threads as bad rather than rulebreaking.
And given that hiding posts is optional and that people can correct things the way posts are marked, it's not a deadly problem. Just a nuisance.
User moderation can and does work (to some extent). It isn't perfect, but neither is moderation by a small elite.