iain, that is disturbing but i dont think it really falls into the humor category of this thread.Agreed.
Actually, I think that could raise an interesting point.
What we may seem to need here is a definition of an acceptable, Pan-forum prevailing RPI (Religio-Political Ideology). A declaration of "What we stand for". It doesn't matter what it is, just define it as a WIP (Work-In-Progress) and unambiguously
, as a first step. Then people will know where they stand. The RPI declaration can always be modified later, and would be always subject to (say), a consenting majority vote, and amended/re-voted on, every 3 or 4 years, as times change and the audience turnover takes place.
Then, aligned with and armed by that DCF RPI declaration, create "safe spaces" on the forum. That would arguably probably help to make it a more desirably inclusive area for a more diverse audience to participate in under the protective umbrella of the RPI. People who might be real
snowflakes (yes, like me, I admit it!), perhaps not having yet had the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, or achieve the psychological maturity to develop a spine and/or a thick skin, would be protected - trigger warnings would ensure that we need not
be afraid about being inadvertently offended by something we might be about to inadvertently see/read on the forum
(Ah bliss! We can just block it out if it threatens to conflict with our own peculiar reality meta-context), and we need not
be afraid to be heard (Ah bliss! No more holding back with our POV, no matter how daft
it may seem to others, because it is just as valid as their stupid POVs) - because nobody would dare be rude enough to flame us or call us "an idiot" (indirectly or otherwise), as seems to sometimes happen at present. (I feel sure that many others, like me, will have been offended by stuff they have seen/read on this forum, or that people may have said directly/indirectly in comments on the forum and which seemed hurtful, but out of fear have always held their peace.)
Rather than reinvent the wheel and design a new RPI and forum safe spaces structure from scratch, as a preliminary template for all of this, we could do a lot worse than adopt/use the UC Berkely model
, which would seem to be an admirable standard to set, and where the forum members could even burn down the entire forum if they see it as fitting. I don't really
mean "burn it down", of course, ha-ha, but simulated,
where there is a "Burn the forum down"
button on each and every post, and if enough people hit that button to achieve a set Burn Threshold
(a preset Burn
button depression count) for any single given item/post/comment, then the system will commence a Burn Event
and emulate a random failure and parts of it will go variously off-line/DDOS or otherwise OOS (Out Of Service) for a predefined interval. The number of parts of the system that will go down and the effective outage duration will be predetermined by and dependent on the scale of the Burn Outrage Level
- the Burn Count
minus the Burn Threshold
, multiplied (aggravated) by any other Burn
events and their severity. (It's mathematical, see?)NB:
To clarify - thus the Burn Count
is the sum of times that that specific Burn
button has been pressed for that specific item.
The Burn Outrage Level
is the Burn Count
over and above the set Burn Threshold
, which is a preset Burn
button depression count.
(Sorry if that seems confusing, but it's technical.)
Theoretically, given a sufficiently angry forum membership response, the whole forum could be out for days or even weeks, but that very possibility will put the forum Administrator on his/her mettle because s/he will be charged with an SLA (Service Level Agreement) that aims for pay-on-performance for continuous minimum forum system uptime/availability of 99.86%, so s/he's not likely to want any idiot to trigger a Burn Event as it will directly adversely impact his/her wallet. Motivation! Problem solved.
There will be more cultural safety, freedom and independence for the now happier and newly-enfranchised forum members, and consequential increased responsibility and accountability for the Admin., where there will admittedly be a bit more work for them to do - so no more slacking and lollygagging around the water-cooler for them!
At the same time, I seem to recall that an up/down voting system was suggested/considered for the DC forum some time ago, but in the event it was not implemented.
Maybe we need to revisit that and reconsider? If there are some jokes or any
subject(s) being discussed that one just does not like
, or that one feels outraged or offended by
, or that simply make one "feel funny inside"
, for whatever reason - whether a clearly-definable reason, or not - then maybe we should implement an up/down
voting system. Then, if a post gets (say) 100 down-votes or so, it would be (say) expunged (not even Basemented) and the author sin-binned, not permitted to post for a period, or simply excommunicated/banished. I mean, if one cannot follow the defined RPI that would seem to be only fair - right? (See also notes on excommunication criteria and licence rescinding, below.)
And if the up/down votes aren't doing it for those who feel themselves to have been victimised, then there's always the Burn
button! (That SLA wiil sure need to be closely monitored!)
I know this might sound a bit like witch-hunting, but it might be just the ticket for the DC Forum so that we don't have to put up with those thorny people who don't think the right way like we do, and then we'd all
be able to really feel a lot safer
, and our children and grandchildren, and maybe even their children too - as I am sure the gentle reader would have to agree.
In addition, we could establish a detailed set of highly specific forum rules - and I don't mean here some mamby-pamby toothless set of rough guidelines (we already have those). No, these will be hard intolerant rules with teeth that absolutely must
be followed by all commenters, with mandatory "trigger warnings" before any
subject is brought up - and no exceptions - under POD (Pain Of Death) - i.e., temporary banning from posting, or excommunication and rescinding/invalidating of DCF software licences in the case of the most persistent offenders.
As a result, there will be no naysayers or stupid conflicting POVs and everybody will be happy-happy - maybe even as good as or better than a frontal lobotomy! - otherwise they won't be allowed to use the DCF forum or software. A contented DC Forum bubble. This should also help to maintain DCF system performance levels to meet the SLA, because, few/no Burn Events
- so everybody wins - right?
Admittedly, this is all rather "off the top of my head" - an idea sparked by @wraith808's
acute and penetrating comment as quoted - but, as you can probably see I am quite enthusiastic about it. Having put it down in writing like this, the act of writing helped me to clarify my thinking about it as I went along, so I have been able to outline the thing pretty well.
As it stands, it just needs a few details put in, whereupon it should be good to go and could probably be implemented over a weekend by any half-competent webmaster.
If you like my arguably highly original thinking and ideas as put down here, then don't be shy! Please make a comment and don't be a stranger with the DC Credits donation button!
And if you don't
like my ideas, then feel free to comment anyway. I'll not forget you when the up/down vote
buttons are installed! (Only joking. I'd never be spiteful like that, honest!) EDIT:
My 6 y/o son has just returned from school and I read this out to him. he thinks it's a great idea!
He even suggested some improvements:
- Flamer Fuel: He said why not have a second button beside the Burn button, with an icon like a can of kerosene or something, called High Octane Flamer Fuel (like in Fallout 3 and New Vegas). Whereas the user could only be allowed one valid press of the Burn button on any given topic, pressing the flamer fuel button would multiply it by (say) 10, for that user, but it would also subtract some DC Credits, so there's some responsibility attached to it and the user pays for it only so long as they have the DC Credits! Brilliant idea! I love that boy.
- up/down vote button animation: He said why not have a hangman icon for the up/down vote status, that reflected the accumulated sum of all the up down votes for that item. A smiley icon meant people liked it, but a progressively sad hanging man meant that it was probably curtains. Another brilliant idea, eh?
- Burn button animation: He said why not have a flame icon for the Burn status, that reflected the accumulated Burn Count for that item. A small flicker icon meant that it was at a low threshold so far, but a fiercely flickering flame icon meant that a Burn Threshold was being approached and a Burn Event was imminent (about to be triggered). Thus a user could determine whether they merely wanted to add their feelings to a harmless small fire, or really wanted to express their anger and risk triggering a full Burn Event. The Admin. would sure as heck have his/her eye on that baby! Another great idea from the boy. I just didn't think of it.