3 ms·
In FIDO.net the problems were largely solved, and they remained solved for a long time. It worked like this: 1. Each forum has a list of rules. Not reading rul
by DenisM 14y ago
In FIDO.net the problems were largely solved, and they remained solved for a long time. It worked like this:
1. Each forum has a list of rules. Not reading rules -> penalty. Breaking the rules -> penalty.
2. Each forum forum has a FAQ. Asking a question from FAQ -> penalty. Unless you can show you read FAQ and there is still something to be discussed.
3. Each forum has regularly updated off-topic list. Bringing up a topic from this list -> penalty. Moderator keeps the offtopics up to date, adding/removing things as needed to maintain calm.
4. Arguing with moderator or comoderators in public -> penalty. All arguments should go into private messages.
5. Telling others what they can and cannot say (usurping moderator's power) -> penalty. All complains should go into private mail.
6. Moderator is usually elected (if public forum) or self-appointed (if he owns the forum). The former can be impeached. The latter can be ignored by creating an alternative forum.
7. Moderator appoints co-moderators. If comoderators misbehave, moderator alone can overrule.
8. Penalties accumulate, yielding bannination.
The system worked well because bannination was real - most people on FIDO had real identities. No reason one can't do the same with facebook logins now.
- DrJokepu 14y agoFidoNet was network governed by a group petty, power-hungry and insecure moderators posing as lords of the manor. It was really, really sad. It worked well in the sense a prison colony could work well. It's a good thing that the whole thing has pretty much died and replaced by the much bigger and more diverse Web.
- DenisM 14y agoIn my corner of the FIDO moderators were harsh but just. I find it that generally people appreciate tyranny when it leads to excellent result where it matters, in this case quality discussion on various topics.