The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

The image that came to me was of an avenue that has many shops.

Shopkeepers are motivated to make something cool. This doesn't diminish whatever is going on on the street corner. A2K, as it is, would still be there. That's the street.

The shops wouldn't take anything away. If anything, they would add to the experience. Maybe you'd have to change your demeanor some to enter a shop that specializes in something: philosophy, for example.

If I opened a philosophy shop, I'd love to have you as a co-owner. You have one of the key ingredients to make something like that work: you actually have something to say.

Interesting business model but with so many places that are free that are similar if not identical will even micro payments work?

It sure does not seems to have too must connections with the current able2know that would tend to hold your current users base in place.

That's what I thought, at first, Tuna. But apparently I misunderstood. That's not how I understood Bob to just explain it, anyway.

There is no street corner. Just shops.

will existing threads survive the re-write?

Yes, a2k will just become a site hosted on this platform.

I just keep getting more and more confused by the explanations of these proposed changes.

Will A2K remain, as a separate and independent "forum," or not?

Or will it simply be a kind of "directory" or "index" to/of available forums?

Edit: your edit made your question clearer, yes it will remain its own forum it will not be the new platform it will be a forum on the new platform.

A2K will be a a community hosted on this platform, so therefore not fully "independent" but otherwise an individual entity, yes, on this platform.

Put it this way, other than logging in on this platform you could come to a2k and just use the a2k forum and ignore the other communities.

Why any class needs to be protected in this forum is beyond me. How do you even know they are actually part of the class you want to protect? Layman uses a photo of an African-American man as his icon. I have no reason to believe he is not black, but would I be shocked if it turned out he isn't? Hell no. I wouldn't be shocked to find out snood isn't black and it not because either of them and seem like white guys posing as black men, but the internet is a freak show and assuming an identity that differs from your actual race or gender happens all the time and is one of the least freaky things people do.

I'm sure I beating a dead horse but why the hell is it worse to call someone a fag than to call them a douche bag? If the person hawkeye called a fag is who I think he is, he's hardly a shrinking violet who is going to suffer psychic trauma, never leave his room again, and never be seen on A2K again. I would also bet good money he was giving as good as he got.

Not defending hawkeye or calling someone a fag, but the notion that calling someone one particular vulgar and insulting term can somehow be worse than someone calling someone else a different vulgar and insulting terms is, IMO, absurd.

I'm going to stipulate now, for all future posts, that you have the right to impose whatever rules you want. You also have the right to refuse to justify the rules you impose. I'm not whining about the rules. If I can't stand them I'll leave, but you are an intelligent person and have some interesting ideas about what to do with this site, and I'm no more prepared to say "Well that's just what Robert wants to do with A2K" than I am to say "Well that's just what Robert thinks about the Affordable Health Care Act." If this feels like a challenge, it is and it isn't. I'm not challenging your authority as respects A2K, but I am challenging your thinking. It's what we do here when the thing is working well.

Well, OK, that's what I originally thought, when I asked you the question. But you said the ONLY forums would be communities I thought. Which made my question moot. Let me ask it again.

Hey everybody, its too soon to panic. Genteel said the change is at least a year away. He could get busy and have to abandon the idea temporarily. All he has said so far is he wants to bring us into the 21st century and nothing else has really been decided. Lets not stress over changes that haven't been made and remember that Robert designed the site we are all so fond of, lets trust him to just make it better.

Yea, I'm not sure what he has in mind. What I know is that there are people out there paying $50 per month to operate forums, but in the long run, they're going to die from a lack of marketing skills.

This forum has accomplished something that's pretty amazing, really. It's a boulevard of diverse people. It's an example of the so-called Third Space. ISIS recruits people to direct automatic weapons at innocent people via the Third Space. There are other possibilities.

I'm passionate. I think you probably understand that sort of thing, Layman.

Assume there's an ongoing thread, and I come into it and make a post. Assume that several other posters then respond to my post--to agree, disagree, ask for clarification, or whatever.

Now assume that I have blocked 100 people and some of them have also been participating in this particular thread.

Now, can you see that those I've blocked may effectively be prevented from participating in that portion of the thread?

If they don't even know the content of my original post, and can't see any follow-up replies I may make, how can they understand the issue or what ANYBODY is saying?

Calling someone a douche bag is not an insult to any other group of people at the same time. Such slurs are, even when not directed at your interlocutor, a derogation of a group of people.

Certain types of of groups of people (mainly the ones you are born into and can't choose) are, on A2K, groups about which such class-wide insults are not tolerated.

If someone made a topic saying "I hate fags and niggers" they would be banned too. This is why that despite this member not necessarily feeling more insulted (this certainly cannot be the litmus test anyway) by the slur that this particular kind of slur (and others like the "****" slur you agreed you would proscribe) are not tolerated here.



Only if you subscribe to the notion that all insulting terms are created equal and are equally harmful to the fabric of the community.



I get that, and never have you given the impression otherwise.



I'm fine with all that. The new platform is about letting others make and run their own communities. All these questions about how communities should be run get to be solved by a bunch of different people their own ways. I'm glad that you and others are thinking about it, the only kind of feedback or criticism I find weary are the persistent ones who insist that I "listen" (i.e. do what they want immediately) and won't stop saying the same thing as if repetition would force me to do their bidding. Those guys are nuts and yeah, as long as you don't do that thing I have no problem with you exploring the finer points of community management and criticizing any of the decisions here.

I am looking forward to participating in the communities of others and more than anything to the diversity of how they will all be governed.

3 bucks a month: that's less than a dime a day!



I'm currently working on a "How Much Of An Arsehole Are You?" quiz for us all to enjoy and I suspect that many will be surprised at how well we do.

As long as the text isn't illegal (eg. sedition, incitement to commit crime ) I'd prefer forums where views can be discussed and argued for and against rather than have taboo subjects like religion politics racism sexism,and if someone should posit upon my sexuality ooo lala .

Yes. And let me explain how I think that will play out:

1) this lack of control on the part of the others from seeing what they want is going to be a source of attrition (this is the primary source of the angst about this feature right now)

2) Users will have a limit on how many people they can block so they can't easily do huge swaths over and over

3) communities will see who abuses this and deal with certain high level abuses (the examples of block so and so and then start a thread about them are moot because any decent community would likely frown on starting threads to attack another member regardless of the blocking and do something about it etc)

4) users will deal with it, when someone's conversations become one sided others will learn to shun these users

I certainly see downsides in theory that i think would become occasional downsides in practice.



You should get to control what conversations are a part of, your concern on behalf of what other people experience is misplaced. This puts the power in each users's hand to choose what conversations they want to be a part of and which few users they want to exclude.

It will dramatically reduce forum drama, and a lot more attrition than it will cause. I'm not denying that it will create attrition points in the community product, but I am asserting that it will solve more than an order of magnitude more by giving people a basic and fundamental right to decide who they want to not talk to anymore.

There will be drama about this especially in the beginning but in the long run it will prevent a lot more drama and is going to be one of the biggest parts about making the communities start to grow their engagement.

Look it's real simple. All the abstract talk about what makes a "good" community is important but abstract. What is a real fundamental truth is this: communities that do not grow are on the path to dying. We are going to lose members (even to things like actually dying). So if the community trajectory is not pointed up, it is going to point down and die.

This kind of thing is nice to argue about in abstract but in practice these arguments are educated guesses. My goal is to make changes that can be measured (in terms of engagement) and if they turn out to be negative I will want to reverse them.

So ultimately I guess a good way to look at these discussions is that they are entirely theoretical for me and a good way to stir up thought about these assorted issues and think about them. But in terms of guiding direction it's all just a lot of hot air (including anything I say).

In practice much of the UX of this kind of thing is built by testing what actually works when the users try it, not what they say or what we think.

A ton of the ideas I have put out there will not pan out. In general most ideas won't and most of the community's feedback similarly will be wrong. Ultimately to be proven right they will be put to the test. Most features will be a/b tested to see which actually works better and we'll go with the numbers even if it contradicts our previously held opinions. That's how this kind of software is built, every part possible is a/b tested to see what actually works and it's only by nailing this entire process that this site will gain traction and users.

True. Both yours and my "guesses."


Fair enough, I guess.

But I would just add this: You say you are currently very unfamiliar with what transpires. I know what I see daily, as do other "regulars."

From what I see, there is very little "self-policing." I do my best, but of course anything I say is immediately dismissed by my "enemies." My "enemies" will invariably side with their homies, no matter how out of line they may be, so the behavior actually gets reinforced, not deterred. I don't just mean me, personally. This is routine, for everyone, on both "sides."

The "ignore" function is seen by some, at least, as a form of "punishment" and/or a source of praise from others. It's use is very subjective, and often employed for petty reasons.

You are convinced everyone will change their habits when it comes to "blocking," but I can't imagine why it should. It will actually give blockers more "power" over those they want to thwart, and some will love that.

We'll see, if you implement this function. But I think you're being over-optimistic about what the "community" will object to.

The biggest problem with the ignore feature is that it isn't a block feature and as long as one of the two is a petty sort then it doesn't tend to work. The one who ignores will peek and be baited into continuing. And the pettiness is shat all over everyone's threads.



No convincing is necessary, just that if anyone wants to use the feature they can and it will actually work as opposed to the current ignore. Block someone and the noise stops.

The communities on the whole will be the better for it.

Well, OK, Bob, whatever you say. I will in one last swoon resurrect a prior hypothetical I advanced.

Suppose the President plans an "address the nation" speech, designed to articulate his goals and, presumably, open them up to "public" discussion. But, before the address, he sends his agents in to shut off the TV's of every person he doesn't like.

Wouldn't that strike you, on principle and a priori, as somehow wrong?

That's simply not "public" discussion. It excludes potential critics, that's all.

I mean, like, I will grant you that their will be no "fight" if someone manages to drug one of the contenders into unconsciousness before the other enters the ring. But at what cost has "conflict" been avoided, I ask ya?

You don't have enemies on the forum, just a few folks who cannot deal with the faux accent that sounds like a bastardization of Walter Brennan, Gabby Hayes, Slingblade and Stepin Fetchit. You can communicate in English, I don't have a clue why you play with that foolish accent. But that's me, I don't have the patience to navigate the Pappy Youkum bit. You don't don't need me to post here, maybe, just maybe Im not the only one who finds it tedious. You also don't need my permission to post as you see fit, it's your faux persona.