Your "worthwhile commentary" may be my useless dribble.
Also, redundancy in opinion does not invalidate those opinions and does not make it a contest of who's best with words when it comes to who should be read. If you invite me to comment on a story, the fact that I agree with everyone should not be grounds for penalizing me.
My point is, moderate all you want with positive scores, but let people choose if they want to agree with you by setting their threshold up from the default ROCK bottom. If you don't agree with a message, that's fine by why should someone else be denied knowing that the message even exists? By setting a message to -1, -10, or -1000 you obscure unpopular ideals from the general userbase. Why not let THEM decide to trust your judgment instead of forcing your judgment down their throat?
Most people feel that personal expression is suppressed due to fear of what one would say... is that what's driving this? I don't think it is but without starting all at the lowest common denominator and letting the people decide from ALL the variables, it surely looks like it is truly fear driving this "moderation".
I am using Windows to use the Internet, and not by choice. Moreover, I have Linux installed on this machine, but have not successfully connected to my cable ISP. That is, not yet , but still working on it.
I did not say it was an opinion poll, I said it were STATICTICS. Whether you LIKE it or not, you are using Windows. That was my point. There is nothing incorrect about those statictics... the only thing incorrect is what people assume I mean by posting them.
(As you'll see by my new sig, I have a new battle to wage. *grin*)
I marked two comments up. Good ideas, well written.
Glad to know that a moderators approval of our idea will grant us worthy of public consumption.
I'm also glad to know that SPELLING AND GRAMMAR count.
This is the problem with this system, it's a message popularity contest.
In my opinion (soon to be -1000 I'm sure), moderators should only look for things that would put slashdot in legal jeopardy. Why else would you moderate other than to cancel out unpopular (to 408) ideals and statements?
Hrmmm... isn't that an underlying ideal of communism... stamp out those who disagree?
If you don't want your posts moderated, takes Rob's advice, use a -10000 threashold
If I wanted to hear my self talk, I'd go into the bathroom and hum, but actually I post comments to COMMUNICATE with people.
For 407 select members to decide who sees my communication is a bit more control than I'd like to see. Let the user opt-out of my comments by boosting their threshold, don't make users opt-in on comments they don't even know exisit.
At least the current setup makes people be active if they want to see everything
So you support forcing people to jump through hoops for the sake of making them "active"?
Let's apply this to everyday life:
A city with the population of 1,000,000 publishes a phone book. 408 city workers are chosen to decide who is "worth" communicating with, the others are not published directly.
They reasoning behind it is, "If someone wants to hear what *those* people have to say, they'll have to call information."
Now what if YOU were one of the ones deemed not "worth" publishing?
This isn't about censorship, its about choice, and people like you are trying to restrict MY choice and other slashdotters... hmm... isn't that a form of censorship?
How am I restricting YOUR choice? How would a lowest score being 0 and the default threshold being 0 limit your choice to change that threshold to 3, 5 , or 1000 exactly as you can do right now?? That is a very poorly thought out arguement.
Your choice has not changed ONE bit from what it is right now, the only thing that has changed is the information given to those who are not aware of the choice yet. They get to see ALL the messages, and if the need strikes them to cut the noise level, they can do that just as you can.
and we'll probably just end up seeing more noise as these people get annoyed and start flaming people.
You wont see if it you up your threshold. *grin* See, at that point the decision is yours... it's nice when it's not made for you isn't it?
don't want to make any decisions any more than people who can't be bothered to get up and vote
While this is most likely true, it does not validate the notion that their apathy gives others totalitarian right to decide what they see.
Like you said earlier, if they don't care what they see... why should we??? Let 'em see it all and if the notion to utilize the tools given them every arises, they have made a well informed choice because the have seen all the information.
A default moderation level that HIDES messages to the average user does not give them all the info to make a well informed choice... if they chose to make one.
And there is the problem... that's your opinion. There just may be some SICK SOULS out there who delight in reading the "first post" posts. Who are you, we, us to hide those posts by default and not allowing people to make their own choices on what they filter out by default?
Why doesn't anyone realize that forcing a 0 threshold default while setting negative scores is just as bad as integrating IE into Win98 while saying "well they can install Netscape". We all know good and well that 80% of people stick with the default options, so marking a message in the negatives effectivily deletes it since most people will never change their default threshold.
This is a hypocritical method for moderation.
If you want to use scores, that's fine but DON'T ALLOW NEGATIVES and leave the threashold at 0. That way, the default is to see ALL COMMENTS and if someone wants your 408 moderators making decisions on what they read for them, they are free to do so.
I also find it hard to believe that 408 people will agree on what's "worth reading", I suspect there will be scoring wars a plenty in the coming days/weeks/months and this will soon become EFNet with the people with power helping their friends and holding down the people they don't like.
*** DaBuzz joins #slashdot <DaBuzz> Can I get a +v? *** Buzz's_Friend sets mode: +v DaBuzz *** Moderator_with_ego sets mode: -o-v Buzz's_Friend DaBuzz <Moderator_with_ego> HAHAHAHA you guys suck, I own you... where's my packet monkey when I need him?
I reported based on the numbers that are available without having "outside circumstances" effect the numbers. I am well aware that many of us (myself included) are bound by whatever our employer decides to put on our desk, but that does not discount the factual aspect of the statistics.
Whether you LIKE it or not... you ARE using Windows.
Maybe my sig is a commentary on MS's monopolistic power even over those who would worship another OS... or maybe I'm just poking fun at the stats... or maybe I'm just an ass. *grin*.
Glad to hear you were contacted and your words were not simply ripped from these pages.
Slashdot comments now quoteables?
on
Wired on Kipling
·
· Score: 0
What I found amusing was that they seemed to have taken things posted in this comments section and used them as their own "sound bytes".
Here's what I'm talking about:
"I'm sorry to say that so far no one has been able to beat the login," said Slashdot contributor Greg Boyce, who offered to buy a Slashdot hat for the first person to crack it. "Turns out it was a bit more complicated than I thought it would be."
I wonder if Greg knows he's being quoted as such.
Time for a new disclaimer... *NO PART OF THESE COMMENTS MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM FOR ANY PURPOSE*.
Why would the CEO of a STREAMING MEDIA company proclaim MP3 dead? To serve his own purpose.
Saying MP3 is like Disco is such a lame comparison, a better comparison would be to say MP3 is like cassette tapes... but that wouldn't get the same reaction now would it?
He says that the content providers will own the industry, not the contend creators. What a dismal outlook for anyone who is willing to put the time and effort into creating music people will listen to. Basically he's saying all musicians are whores to the content providing pimps.
This is no different than MS getting ISP's to make their "services" IE enhanced (read: IE ONLY). How did MS convince them to take this deal? Simple, pony up a large number of FREE NT licenses and Windows 95 licenses for the ISP.
How is Intel getting people to do PIII only content? Simple, free hardware.
This is a world of monopolistic bribery... it's surprising that Intel isn't learning from MS's anti-trust follies.
Oh well, my last Pentium chip is my PII 450, next will be an AMD K7 most likely.
Your email box is as much a public forum as your mail box and phone are.
Then why are junk faxes outlawed? I'll tell you why, because there is a DIRECT and TANGIBLE cost to the RECEIVER.
If my phone was a public forum, why do I have the right to PROSECUTE someone for harassing phone calls? If it's public, you could say what you wanted right? Right. The fact that you CAN'T say whatever you want on MY phone proves right there that it's NOT public. -----
Only 28% of slashdot readers use Linux or *nix, while 55% of them use Windows. How ironic.
But free speech, if you really want it, has to come first.
This is incorrect. In case after case, the court precedence is that PERSONAL RIGHTS come before anyone's constitutional right to badger me.
Is stalking covered under the 1st amendment, NO. Is breaking into a house to paint racial slurs on the walls covered by the 1st amendment, NO. Is walking into yard and burning a cross covered by the 1st amendment, NO.
The key point I'm trying to make is that free speech is only free in public forums, my inbox is NOT a public forum, just as my house and yard are not. When the 1st amendment goes up against personal rights in private situations, the 1st amendment always loses.
Remember, as Americans, we are granted "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". This supersedes any amendment made to the constitution when it's regarding a private setting such as my email INBOX. -----
Only 28% of slashdot readers use Linux or *nix, while 55% of them use Windows. How ironic.
didn't you give out your email address at some point?
And isn't your address public record as well? Does that give an advertiser the right to trespass on your property for the sole purpose of putting up a billboard? NO.
Does the fact that your birth certificate is public record give someone the right to stalk you? NO.
If you have public phone number where you get faxes, does that make junk faxes legal? NO. The fact that your fax number is on your business card does not negate the fact that it is illegal to cost YOU money to send an advertisement.
My personal right to communicate should not be snuffed out by a SPAMMER who will troll for my address and then violate my right to personal privacy. Just because I give something out (my email), this does NOT make it public domain! -----
Only 28% of slashdot readers use Linux or *nix, while 55% of them use Windows. How ironic.
Slashdot Mirror
Your "worthwhile commentary" may be my useless dribble.
... is that what's driving this? I don't think it is but without starting all at the lowest common denominator and letting the people decide from ALL the variables, it surely looks like it is truly fear driving this "moderation".
Also, redundancy in opinion does not invalidate those opinions and does not make it a contest of who's best with words when it comes to who should be read. If you invite me to comment on a story, the fact that I agree with everyone should not be grounds for penalizing me.
My point is, moderate all you want with positive scores, but let people choose if they want to agree with you by setting their threshold up from the default ROCK bottom. If you don't agree with a message, that's fine by why should someone else be denied knowing that the message even exists? By setting a message to -1, -10, or -1000 you obscure unpopular ideals from the general userbase. Why not let THEM decide to trust your judgment instead of forcing your judgment down their throat?
Most people feel that personal expression is suppressed due to fear of what one would say
I am using Windows to use the Internet, and not by choice. Moreover, I have Linux installed on this machine, but have not successfully connected to my cable ISP. That is, not yet , but still working on it.
... the only thing incorrect is what people assume I mean by posting them.
I did not say it was an opinion poll, I said it were STATICTICS. Whether you LIKE it or not, you are using Windows. That was my point. There is nothing incorrect about those statictics
(As you'll see by my new sig, I have a new battle to wage. *grin*)
And what about those MANY people who don't realize that 200,000 people are not listed at all and don't bother to ask?
... it's already at ZERO!
Many people wont even REALIZE that you can get a negative score, so why would they bother to lower their threshold
I marked two comments up. Good ideas, well written.
... isn't that an underlying ideal of communism ... stamp out those who disagree?
Glad to know that a moderators approval of our idea will grant us worthy of public consumption.
I'm also glad to know that SPELLING AND GRAMMAR count.
This is the problem with this system, it's a message popularity contest.
In my opinion (soon to be -1000 I'm sure), moderators should only look for things that would put slashdot in legal jeopardy. Why else would you moderate other than to cancel out unpopular (to 408) ideals and statements?
Hrmmm
Because like it or not, our comments (good or bad) bring traffic, traffic brings revenue in the form of banner impressions/clicks.
... then how would they pay for the NNTP server? *grin*
If all the comments were offloaded to a NNTP server, revenue here would dry up pretty fast
If you don't want your posts moderated, takes
Rob's advice, use a -10000 threashold
If I wanted to hear my self talk, I'd go into the bathroom and hum, but actually I post comments to COMMUNICATE with people.
For 407 select members to decide who sees my communication is a bit more control than I'd like to see. Let the user opt-out of my comments by boosting their threshold, don't make users opt-in on comments they don't even know exisit.
At least the current setup makes people be active if they want to see everything
So you support forcing people to jump through hoops for the sake of making them "active"?
Let's apply this to everyday life:
A city with the population of 1,000,000 publishes a phone book. 408 city workers are chosen to decide who is "worth" communicating with, the others are not published directly.
They reasoning behind it is, "If someone wants to hear what *those* people have to say, they'll have to call information."
Now what if YOU were one of the ones deemed not "worth" publishing?
This isn't about censorship, its about choice, and people like you are trying to restrict MY choice and other slashdotters... hmm... isn't that a form of censorship?
How am I restricting YOUR choice? How would a lowest score being 0 and the default threshold being 0 limit your choice to change that threshold to 3, 5 , or 1000 exactly as you can do right now?? That is a very poorly thought out arguement.
Your choice has not changed ONE bit from what it is right now, the only thing that has changed is the information given to those who are not aware of the choice yet. They get to see ALL the messages, and if the need strikes them to cut the noise level, they can do that just as you can.
and we'll probably just end up seeing more noise as these people get annoyed and start flaming people.
... it's nice when it's not made for you isn't it?
... why should we??? Let 'em see it all and if the notion to utilize the tools given them every arises, they have made a well informed choice because the have seen all the information.
... if they chose to make one.
You wont see if it you up your threshold. *grin* See, at that point the decision is yours
don't want to make any decisions any more than people who can't be bothered to get up and vote
While this is most likely true, it does not validate the notion that their apathy gives others totalitarian right to decide what they see.
Like you said earlier, if they don't care what they see
A default moderation level that HIDES messages to the average user does not give them all the info to make a well informed choice
I see _no_ value in "First Post!!!!"
... that's your opinion. There just may be some SICK SOULS out there who delight in reading the "first post" posts. Who are you, we, us to hide those posts by default and not allowing people to make their own choices on what they filter out by default?
And there is the problem
Why doesn't anyone realize that forcing a 0 threshold default while setting negative scores is just as bad as integrating IE into Win98 while saying "well they can install Netscape". We all know good and well that 80% of people stick with the default options, so marking a message in the negatives effectivily deletes it since most people will never change their default threshold.
... where's my packet monkey when I need him?
This is a hypocritical method for moderation.
If you want to use scores, that's fine but DON'T ALLOW NEGATIVES and leave the threashold at 0. That way, the default is to see ALL COMMENTS and if someone wants your 408 moderators making decisions on what they read for them, they are free to do so.
I also find it hard to believe that 408 people will agree on what's "worth reading", I suspect there will be scoring wars a plenty in the coming days/weeks/months and this will soon become EFNet with the people with power helping their friends and holding down the people they don't like.
*** DaBuzz joins #slashdot
<DaBuzz> Can I get a +v?
*** Buzz's_Friend sets mode: +v DaBuzz
*** Moderator_with_ego sets mode: -o-v Buzz's_Friend DaBuzz
<Moderator_with_ego> HAHAHAHA you guys suck, I own you
Get the point?
You just advertised that you are one of the 408 ... expect to lose it if Rob sticks to his word above (which I doubt he will).
If people can't read the rules of moderation, how can you expect them to make the right decisions on what's worth reading in the first place?
I expect this comment to be at -100 in no time.
Not everyone has to be a pushover to get a job.
/. readers that are not using *nix are push overs? Talk about toning it down a bit ... you may wish to practice what you preach.
So the 72% of
No I'm not.
And was I replying to YOU? No I was not, I was replying to the person who said my stats were "off" yet they had to use Windows at work.
I reported based on the numbers that are available without having "outside circumstances" effect the numbers. I am well aware that many of us (myself included) are bound by whatever our employer decides to put on our desk, but that does not discount the factual aspect of the statistics.
... you ARE using Windows.
... or maybe I'm just poking fun at the stats ... or maybe I'm just an ass. *grin*.
Whether you LIKE it or not
Maybe my sig is a commentary on MS's monopolistic power even over those who would worship another OS
Either way, the stats are correct.
Glad to hear you were contacted and your words were not simply ripped from these pages.
What I found amusing was that they seemed to have taken things posted in this comments section and used them as their own "sound bytes".
... *NO PART OF THESE COMMENTS MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM FOR ANY PURPOSE*.
Here's what I'm talking about:
"I'm sorry to say that so far no one has been able to beat the login," said Slashdot contributor Greg Boyce, who offered to buy a Slashdot hat for the first person to crack it. "Turns out it was a bit more complicated than I thought it would be."
I wonder if Greg knows he's being quoted as such.
Time for a new disclaimer
Check out this editorial I wrote about the PalmV and what's wrong with it.
... is 3com.com. *grin*
Funny thing is, the domain hitting this editorial the most
Why would the CEO of a STREAMING MEDIA company proclaim MP3 dead? To serve his own purpose.
... but that wouldn't get the same reaction now would it?
Saying MP3 is like Disco is such a lame comparison, a better comparison would be to say MP3 is like cassette tapes
He says that the content providers will own the industry, not the contend creators. What a dismal outlook for anyone who is willing to put the time and effort into creating music people will listen to. Basically he's saying all musicians are whores to the content providing pimps.
What a crock.
Didn't he also try to "create" a new Potato hybrid spelled with a ... *gasp* ... E?!?!
If Gore is a robot (many feel he is), he needs a reboot or something because his memory is leaking.
Wouldn't Microsoft's attempt to buy a linux.xxx domain be an attempt to hijack the trademarked name of a major (MS's words, not mine) competitor?
... and boy are they gonna fall hard. (Some other OS communities should take this hint as well)
If Red Hat tried to buy out windows.com, MS's legal team would be frothing at the mouth.
Looks like the boys in Redmond still don't know how to play fair, even with their coffin fully nailed by the DoJ.
Arrogance will be their downfall
This is no different than MS getting ISP's to make their "services" IE enhanced (read: IE ONLY). How did MS convince them to take this deal? Simple, pony up a large number of FREE NT licenses and Windows 95 licenses for the ISP.
... it's surprising that Intel isn't learning from MS's anti-trust follies.
How is Intel getting people to do PIII only content? Simple, free hardware.
This is a world of monopolistic bribery
Oh well, my last Pentium chip is my PII 450, next will be an AMD K7 most likely.
Then why are junk faxes outlawed? I'll tell you why, because there is a DIRECT and TANGIBLE cost to the RECEIVER.
If my phone was a public forum, why do I have the right to PROSECUTE someone for harassing phone calls? If it's public, you could say what you wanted right? Right. The fact that you CAN'T say whatever you want on MY phone proves right there that it's NOT public.
-----
Only 28% of slashdot readers use Linux or *nix, while 55% of them use Windows. How ironic.
This is incorrect. In case after case, the court precedence is that PERSONAL RIGHTS come before anyone's constitutional right to badger me.
Is stalking covered under the 1st amendment, NO.
Is breaking into a house to paint racial slurs on the walls covered by the 1st amendment, NO.
Is walking into yard and burning a cross covered by the 1st amendment, NO.
The key point I'm trying to make is that free speech is only free in public forums, my inbox is NOT a public forum, just as my house and yard are not. When the 1st amendment goes up against personal rights in private situations, the 1st amendment always loses.
Remember, as Americans, we are granted "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". This supersedes any amendment made to the constitution when it's regarding a private setting such as my email INBOX.
-----
Only 28% of slashdot readers use Linux or *nix, while 55% of them use Windows. How ironic.
And isn't your address public record as well? Does that give an advertiser the right to trespass on your property for the sole purpose of putting up a billboard? NO.
Does the fact that your birth certificate is public record give someone the right to stalk you? NO.
If you have public phone number where you get faxes, does that make junk faxes legal? NO. The fact that your fax number is on your business card does not negate the fact that it is illegal to cost YOU money to send an advertisement.
My personal right to communicate should not be snuffed out by a SPAMMER who will troll for my address and then violate my right to personal privacy. Just because I give something out (my email), this does NOT make it public domain!
-----
Only 28% of slashdot readers use Linux or *nix, while 55% of them use Windows. How ironic.