Quote from: subSTRATA on November 11, 2015, 12:07:55 AM

Quote from: shorena on November 10, 2015, 11:00:44 PM

Positive reinforcement. Theymos (or someone good in his name) runs a campaign for the board in addition to usual ads. Exceptional rates (compared to other campaigns) but very strict anti spam policy. This would create a positive example for others to follow or to work towards. This is already given in a sense by other well run and high paying campaigns. It is also not unheard of that exceptional and highly active posters can negotiate special deals.

i like this idea quite a bit; positive reinforcement for good behavior has its advantages in the long run over punishment (negative reinforcement) for bad behavior; psychology and stuff. The only problem i see with this is the demand to be included in this exclusive group. to maintain this exclusive campaign, appropriate amounts of manpower would be needed to constantly monitor the posts of those enrolled. not only that, with people that would constantly be requesting to be included in that group, manpower would need to be dedicated to screen those as well. to top it off, as we know, spammers are quick to adapt, and may do so just to have a chance of being enrolled in these exclusive campaigns. but then again, that would be fixing their spamming problems in a way.

I imagine thats roughly what its like to run a good campaign, yes. Im not sure it must be an official forum run campaign. The currently well run campaigns probably serve the same purpose at least for those that see a chance to get a spot. If spammers would adept their posting to constructive Mission Fucking Accomplished[1]. Which leaves us with: how to avoid or handle campaign manager that do not care about their participants posts?

Quote from: alani123 on November 11, 2015, 01:02:26 AM

"Positive reinforcement" sure is a creative way to give a good example however I don't think it's going to be happening. This would imply that the forum hires and endorses some kind of elite posters to give a good example. In a way, it would also mean that they endorse ideas that the forum should in fact keep a neutral stance on. Would this actually help free speech? Should those participants stay away from supporting controversial views? I don't think this complication would help the neutrality we've had so far here.

We obviously do not want that. The question is how to make sure there is as little bias as possible. It would also not fit into the way things a run currently. Staff stays out of peoples business as much as possible. This staff run campaign would be direct intervention. It might also be no incentive for some of the earliest members, those with the most knowledge and experience usually dont sell their signature. I doubt they would sell it to theymos.

Quote from: subSTRATA on November 11, 2015, 12:07:55 AM

Quote from: shorena on November 10, 2015, 11:00:44 PM

The silent treatment. -snip-

-snip-

Granted, I didnt think about lifting it and as you say it will probably result in more work for staff.

Quote from: alani123 on November 11, 2015, 01:02:26 AM

As of the "silent treatment". Reddit used to have this, it was called a shadowban and was exactly what shorena described. Although the system was functional it wasn't transparent and didn't work really well. In fact they changed the banning procedure to be more transparent and "correctional" just today. https://redd.it/3sbrro

I did not know that, interesting to read it confirms subSTRATA's concerns, but a suspension on reddit is the same as a ban here. You can still log in and read, you just cant post or send PMs.

[1] https://xkcd.com/810/