It definitely works this way on unmoderated sites, but certainly not on carefully moderated sites such as Perlmonks. | [reply] |
“Carefully moderated? ? ?”
Heh... It might be, perhaps, if the technology in question were actually “up to snuff,” but ... let the record show that it just might not be.
“Let the record show, and for whatever arcane technical reason,” this web-site has dutifully (and technically) downgraded me to the status of Anonymous Monk through no intent nor action of my own. Therefore, all of us would do very well not to presume that any “anonymous” actions, whatsoever, are “intentional!”
...
| [reply] |
Your starting with the assumption that a site needs a hierarchy, that certain users need to be trusted with power over their fellow users. This theory is faulty, we can write software which works in a more egalitarian way. I have already perfected the theorem of how such a system works, and I will provide proof of concept in the fullness of time.
| [reply] |
You're starting with the assumption that a site needs a hierarchy...
But there is a hierarchy. Some people here can modify the web site code, and I can't. Some can moderate others' posts, and some can't. Some can altogether reap others' posts, and some can't.
... that certain users need to be trusted with power over their fellow users. This theory is faulty, we can write software which works in a more egalitarian way.
Oh, come on. How long have you been lurking the internet? this dream keeps coming back again and again since 1994, and the sad truth still is that you must groom community sites. Countless tried again and again, and after reaching some critical mass there simply is no way around building fences to contain the dirt.
I have already perfected the theorem of how such a system works, and I will provide proof of concept in the fullness of time.
Good luck with that. What is the chance that you are actually this genius to succeed where countless others from Usenet to Slashdot to Reddit to Digg have failed?
| [reply] |
