5 ms·
aside from the cost for entry, that's the same sentiment that led to why i no longer contribute to wikipedia. zero censorship is too little; any is too much. i
by digitalsushi 7y ago
aside from the cost for entry, that's the same sentiment that led to why i no longer contribute to wikipedia. zero censorship is too little; any is too much.
i'd love to hear your description of this working - you don't need to mention where it is specifically because that would of course, ruin it.
- arpa 7y agoThis site has been online since ~1997, I think, so I think most of the oldtimers know it already. It follows the basic rule of "live by your words and be ready to do as you say". There are sub-rules, also, like "do not post if your post doesn't contribute to the thread". Unwritten rules also exist, that somehow curb the eternal september: "don't post for the first few years, just read". There is no concept of karma there, only thread rating, which IMO helps prevent karma-whoring, as it focuses not on individual, but rather a collaborative effort to make an epic thread. The mods are subject to these rules as well: I've seen mods banned by other mods and mods probating themselves for breaking their rules... i've spent my 10$ some five years ago, and, frankly, it was a good decision I would make again.
- Frondo 7y agoThey're talking about Something Awful, which is widely regarded as having very successfully run its forums with a lot of fun, trollish behavior without losing the overall good vibe of the community, by doing exactly what he said.
- arpa 7y agoYou are absolutely correct, my good sir/madam/gender-inspecific pronoun.