Antitorgo wrote:
Just a thought -- but if we wanted Slashdot or Digg, wouldn't we just go there?

Yes - you would.

This isn't about recreating /. or digg.

Look at /. - it isn't a piece of software - it's a community that runs on software that's well designed for a community. The community is what makes /. a strong presence.

There are plenty of sites out there running on slashcode, but they aren't popular because they aren't /. - if it were just a matter software, then those sites ought to be popular too.

Point being, I'm talking about strengthening the community by making the software more community-friendly - not recreating another community here.

Antitorgo wrote:

The amount of opinion-based negative moderation that goes on with both those sites means that some interesting posts get modded down because they don't meet the "group ideology" of the site.

That's partly true, but in my experience, a well thought out comment on /. is likely not to get unfairly modded down. I state in my sig that I work for MS. While this has caused some people to have a problem with me, most seem to be very understanding, and I've had quite a few posts modded up very highly.

The reason the opposing viewpoints often get modded down is that the viewpoint is delivered in the traditionally tactless style of the drive-by forum troll. If you're respectful on /., and if your message is good, it's pretty likely you'll get modded up.

What I'm talking about here, though, isn't a system to rate content as being good or bad - it's really just a troll filter. In other words, let's not mod someone down because they're advancing an opposing viewpoint - let's mod them down because they're insulting people for no reason, or because they're clearly trying to be disruptive.

It's not content control - it's behavior control. Trying to keep things civil around here where it's been demonstrated time and again that some people have a very difficult time doing that.

Antitorgo wrote:

How many times have you been frustrated by Slashdot Linux and Mac zealots moderating you down just because you happen to not bash, or heaven forbid be pro Microsoft?

Like I said, the /. community has been very fair with me, but I think it's because I argue the content rather than the people. I don't sling mud, and I don't pick fights. If someone's dishing out misinformation about MS, then I'll correct them - not in an insulting way, but in a "Hey - somebody told you the wrong thing" kind of way. And it's been very positive.

Antitorgo wrote:

Is the volume of posts on C9 even high enough to even warrant a moderation system?

I think so.

I also think the post volume might increase if we had such a system in place.

I wonder how many people don't want to take part in conversations here because they want to avoid flamewars - or how many have been driven away by making perfectly good points, only to be told that they're shills, zealots, sell-outs, or whatever.

I see this as improving the community and increasing posting volume over time.