Umm.. I think?
Umm.. I think?
I propose to
1. Article posted.
2. Comments can be made on article.
2a. Comments are moderated.
2a(i). Moderations are meta-moderated.
3. A 'Random Discussion' can be had on the article.
3a. NO moderation is made on random discussions, there is only a junk filter *
3b. Junk filter has an enable/disable toggle.
3c. Specifications of what 'junk' is can be chosen by the user **
3d. Junk filtration system can be actively expanded upon by the
With the comment system you have to face the benefits and penalties of constructive commenting. The way the current system works is efficient with less comment material to be acted upon, in my opinion.
The addition to the system allows people who feel the need to rant to have said ability. It gives them the choice to argue over something that isn't 100% correct in everyone's minds. It encourages creativity and feedback, good and bad, on their creativity. It allows more opinions that aren't 100% on-topic, but are related to the topic at hand to a decent degree.
I believe that this is a useful improvement in both the commenting system, as well as the moderation system. It's a better balance. Ideas?
* (spam, random garbage text, etc).
** any discussion entry containing a URL or any discussion entry containing an '@' symbol, for example. Also, usernames can be entered as junk by readers. There is also an anonymous filter (i.e. all anonymous comments are marked as junk).
*** to automatically include new things determined to 'always' be junk, or new 'what junk is' selections that are selectable by the user.
They are relatively good but absolutely terrible. -- Alan Kay, commenting on Apollos