Lambda the Ultimate

I take it that you dislike the current balance

That's the understatement of the year...

a) a topic post by a new member requires approval; (b) creating an access right for members in good standing to create a topic without approval.

I am not sure I understand. Aren't these two things the one and the same?

Think of rights like contributing editors. You don't really want to approve every story that we post for the front page - so you have a trust model in place that basically grants the contributing editors the right to post stories without you having to approve each and every one (though some of my stories in the past probably should have gone through editorial controls).

Well, obviously you have some control in place for front page stories, but you don't have a similar trust model for (a) posting new topics; or (b) posting a response within a thread to a topic. But I think it would get old for the site administrator to have to approve every story or post - and the users that can be trusted would likely get frustrated with the delay inherent in any approval process.

So what I'm proposing is that users be grouped into classes (a) those that can post stories to the front page; (b) those that can post new topics to the forums; and (c) those that can post a response to a current story/topic. This would prevent users appearing out of no where and starting a flame-fest topic (i.e. the post would be staged for approval). But it would also mean that those who acted responsibly over time would not be penalized by a bureaucracy (they have been granted a trusted status). It would work the other way around where a trusted member that violates the norm could be downgraded to a probationary status (until such time as the trust is built back up).

Of course, I don't know how well any scheme will scale. There is probably an optimum size for LtU wrt to audience quantity versus story and discussion quality. Don't know if we've exceeded that quotient just yet, but there is always that danger.

Anyhow, my vote is cast for (a) a topic post by a new member requires approval; (b) creating an access right for members in good standing to create a topic without approval.

The original proposal, "new forum topics posted by new members will be held for approval by moderators", corresponds to (a), but is also supposed to imply (b), i.e. that "non-new" (trusted) members will still have the ability to create topics without approval.

I support this proposal too. While I completely agree with the sentiment expressed by Niels elsewhere in the thread, that the community should help guide newcomers, I don't think it's reasonable to expect perfect behavior from the community at all times. Allowing newcomers to post material without limits has led to unnecessary provocation on a number of occasions.

In a previous round of discussion of such issues, Bryan Turner posted an interesting comment entitled Pay your Dues. I think Bryan correctly identified an important issue. Moderating new forum posts by new users is one of the most benign steps in this direction that we can take.

...I was just trying to hash out the idea in my own mind - just my ramblings trying to figure out the implications.

Short of anything else, this should prevent any further spam topics cropping up (though spammers tend to be creative in their destruction).

I think I know which personal attacks you refer to, but if you can email me the links you have in mind I'd be obliged.

I can't see that it'd hurt to have some moderation.

It adds more work for the LtU team, so if it's not going to help we shouldn't adopt this policy.

As Chris has already pointed out, problematic posters can sidetrack existing threads. Unfortunately, I can't see moderation of forum topics helping that situation. Poor forum topics can simply be ignored, but a disruptive thread can clutter up an otherwise interesting story or topic.

Have posts by old staff approved automatically, those by individual who *ahem* asked for it rejected and the rest moderated manually.

I am quite sad that things has to come to the point where I offend people who post here. You should know that the thread you started is not the most problematic, and is not the reason of my admin post (which was planned before you posted your message). I do hope you will be able to enjoy LtU.

It might have made more sense if you mentioned at some point exactly what research you conducted and came up empty handed, and tried to answer the questions people posed to you.

We agree that our policies are unclear - I wrote this myself in the original post. The reason is that LtU grew and many things that were clear to the "founding fathers" need to be put in writing. We are working on fixing that. I am sorry if until this is done people get burned, and I do try to be as gentle as possible. A big part of the current situation is that old time members apparently disagreed with me, and hence disregarded my gentle rebukes about several threads, leading to an unnaceptable situation by my standards. It's not you who should shoulder the blame.

Vorlath's original post was clearly inflammatory and inappropriate (style, not topic) for LtU. You can't blame the community for reacting the way it did -- it is just human nature and no amount of chastising will get a community to ignore inflammatory posts. Even now this new user doesn't see what he did wrong. The problem isn't LtU's; the problem is that this user lacks common social etiquette.

I think the "First X messages are moderated." from the Pay Your Dues post that Anton linked to is the best solution. It definitely would have helped here. It will also help newbies who may be mistaken about the nature of LtU. If all contributing editors can moderate the burden should be small.

As for myself, I'd gladly volunteer for any coding that might be needed. I'm part of that "new wave" of non-academics, so I don't contribute much in terms of comments, and I generally try to lurk more than post. However, I gain a lot from LtU, and if I can pay back the site in other ways I'd be happy to.

The problem is not that concurrency and distribution are not valid topics for LtU. The problem rather is that it is brought up in a manner that has no reference point (a newsworthy story as Ehud would like). So instead of discussing the matter in an intelligent fashion, it quickly goes awry.

Or put differently, the problem is not the ideas that you espouse, but rather in the lack of structure in the discussion of those ideas.

Your phrasing in your first post was inflammatory. You claimed a number of things that're incorrect, while suggesting that language designers (and many posters on LtU at least dabble) "can't see the solution" or else "refuse to move forward".

This is not generally conducive to polite conversation and a lack of uproar.

I think it would be much better if regular members of Ltu take it as their civic duty to inform newcomers on expected tone

Sure. I agree with your entire argument. In fact, as previous discussions show, we agreed that regulars should do this. This is partly the reason why I am so bothered by what happened in the last couple of days.

I remember reading somewhere that accounts without real names on them are discouraged. Perhaps one of the reasons that discussions on Lambda tend to be so polite is that most people are not hiding behind the mask of a pseudonym as on so many other sites. It may add to the level of discussion if this policy were enforced a little more - perhaps even asking people with pseudonyms to change the name of their account?

I did try to address part of the question, albeit in a rather grumpy manner. I probably shouldn't have picked the subject line I did either.

Hm, I just followed that link to the Low-level post, but I don't really find it that offending, personally, nor exceptional.

In the recent months there have been lots of posts on LtU that weren't too interesting, some of them trolling discussions (static/dynamic typing), others posts from real newbies without too much of a clue.

But I wouldn't say any of this is bad. I simply avoid the beginners' posts when I don't have / want to take the time, and they don't ever end up on the front page RSS feed, so that's fine.

I agree that obvious trolls should be banned (maybe after warning them; sometimes a post might sound more offensive than is intended, if the poster doesn't know English too well), but in general LtU is still doing fine, I'd say, with the exception of some newbie posts, but they too will learn with time...

I'm not a fan of splitting LtU into "high" and "low" parts. There are already many other "low" forums people can use. Many of the interesting posters here are /not/ academics and scientists but pragmatic programmers and engineers. I'm afraid limiting people to a "low" category hurts the breadth of readers, doesn't encourage people to stick around long enough to make it to "high", and lowers the LtU standards.

I agree with you, Ethan.

There are already many other "low" forums people can use.

But those forums are not related to LtU. My suggestion implies that the "low" part will directly be related to the "high" part.

Many of the interesting posters here are /not/ academics and scientists but pragmatic programmers and engineers.

But I did not say that only academics and scientists would be allowed in the high part. What I meant is that those people that have the skills to reply on a level close to a computer languages scientist should probably belong to the high forum, and those that are not knowledgable enough should be part of the low forum, until they are educated enough to be part of the high forum.

I'm afraid limiting people to a "low" category hurts the breadth of readers, doesn't encourage people to stick around long enough to make it to "high"

I think otherwise: a person that sincerely wants to contribute but does not know enough about programming languages will try to educate himself in order to be able to participate. It's extra motivation.

Take a recent example: someone said that there is no programming language which is really high level. Obviously, the person saying so has not done his homework when it comes to languages like Haskell. It would not be possible to "litter" the high forums with such a thread if there was a separation between "high" and "low".

People whose knowledge of PLs is not expansive can still make valuable contributions (at least, I like to think so since I happen to fall in that category). OTOH, a person can be a genuine PL wonk, but have a personality that is overbearing and disruptive. Generally speaking, smart people are more cognizant of their limitations in knowledge (even though they possess more), but this can lead either to a sense of humility for the subject or on the other extreme an impatience with those that aren't on the same plateau.

Anyhow, register me as one that believes that the source of problems is social in nature, rather than technical (of course, experience teaches us that more often than not, the lack of technical and social skills collude with one another, causing the most problems).

I thought that was the distinction between the front page and the forums? If not, then I apologize for mis-using your wonderful site here, which's single-handedly inspired me to being working on my own language project.

Speaking as a low-level guy who still can't get his head some of the "basic" type-theory things, I'd be just fine with being relegated to the low-end bucket, as long as the high-end guys are willing to chime in to help out with my occasional stupid questions. I'm fascinated by PL's, but have no illusions that I've anything new to add to the "real" discussions. How bout the two-level system, plus let me reply to the high-end posts via a moderator who sanity checks that I'm not either trolling or so woefully ignorant as to distract from what's really there?

Another option (which I don't know if drupal supports) would be the equivalent of "ok, let's take that discussion offline to a separate conversation". Any kind of "spawn child" moderation option? Perhaps run/adjudicated by licensed moderators and/or the post-owners?

Being the author of this the linked to comment, and having it emphasize the community. I'm not sure how exactly it should be gone about, but I agree it is people that cause problems not threads. Most of the long-time members will self-moderate themselves or their threads when they get out of hand or respond to prodding from the community, and usually they do not start such (sub)threads in the first place.

I find this post a good example.

Indeed it is. The trouble is, it didn't achieve the desired result. The issue at hand is what to do in such cases.

When possible, civil rebukes and suggestions are of course better - I think everyone on this thread agrred to this as a general rule.

create a time limit for forum postings

This is one of the ideas we considered implementing. I'd like to hear what others think about it.

How about letting people vote whether they like particular posts or not. The higher rankings a person would get, the more often that person would be allowed to post (edit: as well as vote). The ranking should have exponential decay emphasizing the most recent posts by a person.

Well, howabout just letting people vote whether they like particular posts or not and display the results next to the post after some preset amount of votes (e.g. after 5 votes) have been given. This would allow people to express dislike of inflammatory posts without actually having to start a flamewar.

i'm not sure there's a terrible problem. there have been times when this place has been too academic. if someone has a lot to learn they're going to sound pretty stupid, but that doesn't mean that they won't learn.

Just to clarify my position: I have no problem with newcomers, nor with non-academic interest in programming languages. Andrew of course knows this well, since we discussed it here over the years many times.

My problem was with pissing matches, non civility, and a marked unwillingness to learn which to me is a clearn sign of no real interest in the subject.

This helps the community, but is too harsh (IMHO) to misguided newbies. We could have both, the first N moderated posts and /ignore for other cases (e.g. trolls). Also it could be optional to ignore the answers to their posts, because sometimes it's amusing and instructive to read the answers, specially when there are interesting linked articles in the answer.

For instance, I would gladly have used my full name if when I signed up for LtU I had the slightest idea that anyone gave a crap.

You can change your username on the 'my account' page. But you are right, things like this should be made more explicit. For this particular issue there could be a note on the page for registering new users.

Yes, policies should be made explicit. However, this is hard work, and it seems most members don't want to help with this or other aspects of running the site (many do, and they are the real members of the community, of course). This is why these things take time. Personally, I think you should offer help not criticism.

More to the point, you have been a member for close to a year. I expect that anyone following the site for that long would know by now what LtU is and what its goals are. Indeed, it seems most other members know. Notice how many people here mentioned that the community should educate newcomers about the site and its unwritten style and policies. Now maybe written policies are important for newcomers, but after a year? I think the burden is on you.

Personally, I think you should offer help not criticism.

I would be glad to help if I thought I had the knowledge necessary.

I expect that anyone following the site for that long would know by now what LtU is and what its goals are.

I don't know. I see articles and discussions, some of which I don't have the background to understand, some of which I find interesting, and a very few of which are just stupid. Sometimes I see a comment from you or something indicating that you don't approve of it, but in general, I don't know if you approve or not. From your original post: "but it seems many regulars enjoy these long threads, which to me seem rather pointless, and indeed want LtU to be more like USENET than like a group blog." I suspect that some of the stuff I like is stuff you wish would go away. But I just don't know.

Indeed, it seems most other members know.

I thought the whole problem that prompted this post was that members appear NOT to understand what LtU is and what its goals are.

I think what it boils down to for me is that I'm just not sure if I and people like me are welcome here or not. I am very aware that the target LtU audience is a lot more informed than I am, but I like to think that I can participate by reading and making an occasional comment. After I read one of these posts I start to think that maybe you wish people without a very strong educational background just wouldn't post or comment, that you discourage the slightest amount of off-topicness so much that the environment is oppressive, and that you wish the plebians would just go away.

I would actually understand that, if I knew for certain that's what the issue was. But I really just don't know.

It has nothing to do with the amount of education, as I explained many times. It is all about being sincere and wanting to learn - whether you are a newcomer or an expert.

Everyone is welcome. The fact that a couple of people recently made the forum less informative and civil shoudln't imply that other members aren't welcome.

I usually try to stay out of administrative matters here because (firstly, I have not posted for a long time, but secondly because) I can be fairly heavy-handed, and moreover have the sense that I am so biased in the academic direction that my decisions would alienate a lot of users. But I will give myself license to speak on this occasion because mostly what I have to say is, I think, not biased in the expected direction.

Personally, I view LtU more as a forum than a group weblog, and have always done so. To me it is rather clear that there are two persons in charge, and the rest of us, although we can submit stories, are users rather than administrators. That isn't a bad thing, in my mind; it's just the way I look at it.

Maybe as a consequence, I don't really mind if some people start forum threads which, to me, seem pointless or ill-informed. If I don't care to, I don't have to follow that sort of thread, and, so far, I have not noticed this happen to threads of the front-page stories. (But I haven't followed them very closely recently, so I could be wrong.)

OTOH, I did in some ways prefer LtU the way it was a year or so ago, when there were only maybe 15 active posters, nearly all of whom were thoughtful, competent and interested in learning and teaching. When I see a lot of "bad" messages, I start to think it reflects badly on LtU; but image is not substance, and the way to improve things is, I think, not to muzzle them but to confront them.

So, to me, the flip-side of freedom of speech in the forums is that if I (or someone else, but frankly it has often been I :) go in there and write, "this is bullshit because A, B and C...," then they will not accuse me of being unsociable.

Of course, some people are impossible. But, I have noticed that often those people will leave of their own accord after they get fed up with being called on every time to support their claims with facts or to write coherently. Also, these sorts of problem people tend to take everything personally. (Sometimes, I grant you, it is my fault for being too abrasive, but frankly I also think it relates to the fact that their egos depend on being accepted as correct, rather than actually being correct.)

It is not that I think we should drive people off, but rather that I think that anyone who wants to exercise their freedom to speak also must accept a concomittant duty to listen. What they do after that is their own business. If they still disagree, they can storm off, or they can stay around and continue arguing until other people lose interest.

As for pseudonyms, I don't really care either. I do think remarks should be judged on their content, not who made them, and certainly not on the name of who made them. OTOH, it is hard to deny that "pseudonymous" remarks lack some of the moral conviction that normal ones do, and personally in a place like this I think pseudonyms look kind of immature and amateurish. Well, that is a prejudice of my own, but undoubtedly shared by others; if you are willing to live with it, by all means, use a pseudonym.

So, in conclusion, I favor the status quo because I think democracy enables both innovation (not the right word — uh, I mean the freedom to say something insightful) among individuals and criticism between peers. As long as we exercise both, I think we will be OK. Of course, if disk space or bandwidth is an issue, then maybe democracy won't work. :)

Update: You can interpret "listen" in many ways, and that is where the authoritarian judgements start.

A few days ago, I wrote something which could be taken as insulting, though I didn't point any fingers. Somebody responded and called me (specifically) some names, which I found annoying. But, OK, what I wrote was controversial, and it's no skin off my back if they disagree with me; so I looked the other way. If it happens a few more times, maybe I would get nasty back. But I think my remarks stand on their own, so I don't need to turn it into a pissing match every time someone criticizes me. So I think I was fulfilling my duty to "listen", and that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Update: On second thought, maybe that wasn't such a good example... :) Apologies for being so pompous.

Thanks, very useful. If anyone has anything to add to this, please do. We'll be incorporating the feedback and useful comments into improved orientation and policy pages.

Perhaps it would be instructive to include links to specific (sub)threads/topics that have been considered inappropriate as examples? In a policy page I mean, e.g. the FAQ.

This might be a good idea, thanks.

you know it wasn't always like this, right? there was a time when it was largely chris and i exploring things that were new to us, but probably way too basic to get approved according to this?

you have a few people (one, two?) who don't get the cultural vibes here. your response is to post something so extreme, off-putting and, frankly, arrogant, that you will lose many others who could, in time, be useful contributors.

you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It's great to hear what you think, Andrew. For those who don't know, Andrew is LtU's second user/contributor ever...

We may indeed be overreacting, and we should be careful not to sound too arrogant and off-putting.

The reason I emphasized sincerity is that I think the problems we are trying to address isn't caused by being uninformed, or an outsider to the field, but rather by being smug, a know it all, and an unwilling to learn.

I want to make it absolutely clear that in my mind LtU should always welcome "newbies", and should cater to people with diverse backgrounds. I, perhaps naively, think that you can do this without giving up on quality and civility. The only proof I can offer that this is indeed possible is LtU itself. For me that's proof enough.

I've arrived here while searching for this fabled ethos of LtU. I found myself wondering:

"Ehud keeps on posting front-page articles complaining about lack of quality home page articles, declining discussion quality, bad threads not worth reading etc. Am I also to blame? Were my recent postings problematic?"

So off I go, and I find out you've been moaning about this for years :) It certainly does come off as a little arrogant and disparaging of newbies - I've been a member for years and still feel like a newbie.

Anyhow, I've been appropriately chastened, and will refrain from posting again for some time.

This is a good point. We should include a link to comp.lang.misc in the policies page. More link suggestions?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/langsmiths/

I think there's another angle to this. It is prefectly valid to ask "why should I spend time on learning FP" (or anything else for that matter). A good answer is "beacuse many people (see X,Y, Z) think it is interesting beacuse of A, B and C". What is impossible, in general, is to explain in a short (or even long) LtU thread why A, B and C really make sense and what they really mean in practice. The only way I know of leanring these things is by reading about them and playing with them (i.e., programming). You cannot learn swimming by debating the color or shape of pools.

What we can, and should, do is to help finding good resources, help with specific questions etc. But other than that, you really have to get your hands dirty.

This was the gist of my post Bah. Plus providing some motivation why one should put out the effort no matter what the outcome.

I do accept responsibility for trickling this space with unintelligible comments. I agree a slashdot-like mod-up, mod-down, voting system where everything below a user-given treshhold is not shown would be nice.