In this section there would be no pseydonyms. Just threads with nocrediting Everyone would have the nic Anonymous. There would be no need to avoid hypocrisy or worry about sunk cost with a nic.
Proposed etiquette. Don’t site pseudonyms elsewhere in the site. It shouldn’t be meta commentary on the site posters or a place for attacking others. But for raw ideas without having to worry about being too consistent. A place for flexibility in thought.
Fine if people re-post stuff that is ignored, but ignore spam. Inspiration can out distance spam.
Let me also propose that there not be within threads Anon 1, Anon 2, Ano 3… denoting tracking of posters within thread. Maybe not even tracking of edits- if people want that noted they can indicate they edited.
I’m afraid that such a section would increase the moderation load tremendously (if you’d want it to contain some sort of useful discussion). See www.4chan.org that is the pioneer of the “Anonymous” concept.
I see your point, that you could post things without others having any preconceptions of you, which in theory would put focus on the content rather than the poster. In practice though, my guess is that it would be filled with really low quality content. I think that having pseudonyms is a good tradeoff, it makes people think at least a little bit before posting while still having the possibility to be anonymous. You can even create new accounts every now and then if you want to.
Anyway, even if we wanted to there is currently no such feature in the forum software. Someone would have to code it first.
We could use Aether if we want to talk about MaidSafe while being anonymous. You can download it for Windows and OS X at the moment but the author is working on packaging it for Linux. There’s already a board on MaidSafe so you can just join it and start a new thread if you want.
One of the users just asked how the distribution model of MaidSafe is different from spam and posed that as a serious question.
If not an anonymous section than maybe a “pro spam” section for people who want further dis-empowerment.
Something like the following:
“We need systems that don’t steal time and attention (excuses about voluntary are nonsense) and we need systems that only take money and influence from legitimate end users. These are preconditions to having lasting free society.”
Is not a floor for them its an unacceptable ceiling. And maybe my self quote above is misguided or has critical flaws or isn’t in good alignment with the intent of Maidsafe but I think they are still wanting to argue against even the stated goals of the MaidSafe group in its official releases, they just don’t do it directly or good faith.
It would be like having a group from alcohol industry visiting AA meetings denouncing abstinence and opening up in beer cans in the meeting and lighting up etc. They were insisting on being able to heckle people trying to quit. Its like the “Christians against Christ” these are supposedly people here to discuss ways to further support and encourage empowerment that are against actual empowerment.
It might be a hard call but shill posts could go in a pro spam section. I keep thinking of one of the posters linking showing his work in trying to put a pay wall on bit torrent. This kind of attempted roll back to a censor regime seems as ethical to me as trying to spread torture. Its as if a forum working to promote the safety of children is being fed shill posts from nambla lawyers or reps. Its no red scare its just lice.
[quote=“Warren, post:7, topic:976”]
One of the users just asked how the distribution model of MaidSafe is different from spam and posed that as a serious question. [/quote]
It would really help if you linked to specific posts, it makes it so much easier to have a discussion.
So is your suggestion to have specfic sections for certain type of opinions? I want this forum to first and foremost be about the MaidSafe technology. Despite what some people think this technology will actually attract quite a wide range of political opinions (I see this a lot in Bitcoin communities too) and that is perfectly fine by me. If I feel that someone is way out of line I will consider deleting posts and/or banning people rather than putting the posts in a specific category.
It is OK to mention the poster (in this case @russell, right?) and even better would be to also put a link to the project here so that people can judge for themselves. When you’re comparing someone’s work to spreading torture you might at least give them a fair chance to respond. IMO it’s an outrageous comparison by the way.
re: Warren’s comment. What the hell are we talking about right now? I can’t tell if I’m being attacked, protected…
EDIT: @warren from my understanding of the project, the BitTorrent paywall system means that the filmmaker is paying, out of pocket, to shoot a 1hr pilot and distribute it for free. If people like the first episode, then they can pay through the paywall for the rest of the series. The money from the paywall will be used to create the full season. It’s just someone experimenting with a new model.