Oh, we’re sure it’s guns 'n bullshit.
Those dicks are just mesmerizing.
It’s almost as if the key to both better debate and avoiding post-traumatic stress alike might be to avoid over-reacting…
There’s no point in using trigger warnings because only responsible commenters will use them and trolls will ignore the convention and continue to obfuscate with impunity by participating in the discussion only by rubbishing others ideas without taking a proactive approach.
Surely the warning system is already in place? It’s any thread less than one day old introduced with an estimated read time advisory.
This might be related to @beschizza proposing a special “high risk discussion” mode. Because it is certainly true that some topics are just inherently controversial.
The key observation is that regulars, known users, are generally OK and can be trusted with these kinds of topics but the general public… notsomuch
Thus, a lockdown where new users have to do a bit more to post:
- maybe they have to prove they read every prior comment
- maybe they have to prove they read the original article
- maybe all new posts by new users have to be approved
- maybe there are even more restrictions on what new users can post
Reading through my reply to that topic, I still favor a basic algorithmic check to see if a topic is “high risk” and trigger this high risk mode which really only affects new users…
btw @TailOfTruth this is an excellent meta topic, it’s exactly why we create this category on every install of Discourse. All real community is predicated on internal discussions of “why are we doing this, and should we?” by people that, y’know, care about what goes on there.
I really like the idea of a “high risk” category combined with new accounts needing to have their posts approved on those threads. It will go some way to mitigate the drive-bys whilst not unduly penalising new posters with a genuine interest in discussion.
And you could have the “high risk” tag generated by an algorithm or have the original poster auto-tag it. Because, let’s be honest, we know which comment threads are likely to be the problematic ones.
Having a “high risk mode” does actually sound like it might fix some of the more controversial threads/topics, but would it incorporate this wonderful gif as part of the warning? A gif is worth 1000x[# of frames]=number of words… and thus this gif is worth quite a few thousand words, I think it could be a wonderful addition to any future “high risk mode”. No?
I suggested three days of moderation for all new accounts and you basically told me to go get bent when I did. It is good to see that when a Boing Boing author/editor suggests it, you consider it…
Clearly you forgot the 1st rule of the internet…
Hie thee to the GIF bank now with that.
Er… What? No idea what you are talking about. There were a bunch of ideas floated; I am not proposing anything other than an algorithmic high risk mode which kicks in on some topics, with effects TBD.
Of course it is true that the opinions of the owners of the got damn site do carry more weight, given that they pay the bills around here. Is that really controversial?
I don’t care whose idea is credited if we can moderate new accounts for a few days by default.
A few days? Ok I’m cool with that.
My suggestion was you can’t post anything for 48 or 72 hours (or that it is moderated by default if the system supports it).
I know, and I was snarkily suggesting that we never let them post. Just a joke… obviously your not a comedian.
ETA - Then again, what if I’m not actually funny? Shit.