I have not read the page in full yet–the document is lengthy and I’ll have to set aside some time in the near future to go through it properly. I have, however, scanned the whole document and read the first few sections carefully.
I look forward to seeing your further comments when you have time to read it in more depth.
I think the system is sound, so long as the blogger is given maximal freedom in matters of interpretation as to what fits into each category. Of course, this must be within the bounds of common sense–a Christian proselytizing in a “Theistic Satanists only” post would require deletion regardless of the blogger’s interpretation.
The individual blogger will indeed have some leeway, but too much leeway would defeat the point. In order for the system to work, it will be necessary for all of us to be on more-or-less the same page in our understanding of both the rules themselves and the reasons why we have each rule. We’ll need to ensure, somehow, that each blogger has a solid understanding of the rules, the purpose of each rule (given our goal of allowing maximum dissent with minimum drama), and the likely practical consequences of not having any given rule. For this, it will not be sufficient to rely on common sense, because some of our rules may seem counter-intuitive at first glance (especially to people without experience in running a large, high-profile online forum). What will be necessary will be to require each new blogger to engage in a discussion about the rules, and to ask questions about any rule that doesn’t seem to make 100% complete sense.
I don’t see any signs of the network becoming a dictatorship of sorts, but I feel the need to make this statement of opinion upfront.
I am indeed hoping that the blog network won’t need to be nearly as much of a dictatorship as my Yahoo groups are. My Yahoo groups are definitely a dictatorship. The blog network will be much more decentralized, but we’ll still need people to cooperate, to a large degree. Hopefully people will be able to cooperate voluntarily, out of sufficient knowledge and agreement with our aims.
The only problem I have with the system: the last tag on the list. I’d prefer it be renamed to something more conducive to search and perception management. I probably wouldn’t read a post with such a category as “Theistic Satanism troll playground”
In fact, one of the reasons why I chose the name “Theistic Satanism troll playground” was precisely to discourage most readers from looking at that page very often, just as the corresponding Yahoo group, Theistic-Satanists-and-others-3, is deliberately the smallest of my public discusson groups on Yahoo. The fewer people are involved in a highly volatile discussion, the less likely it is to get completely out of hand. So, in my opinion, your agreement with my perception that the name is off-putting is a good reason to keep the name, not a reason to change it. Not only do you agree that it is off-putting, but, even better, you seem to agree with me that it is off-putting in a way that is not likely to push people’s buttons, but instead just looks uninteresting. As you state below:
and not because I don’t want to read offensive posts; it would just give the (usually incorrect) perception that the content lacks substance.
Again intentional. The kinds of discussions that get relegated to T-S-a-o-3 are the kinds most likely to generate more heat than light, especially if too many people get involved.
Do you still feel that it should be given a name that would get more people involved? If so, why?
A tag such as “Theistic Satanism free-for-all” may be more appropriate, in my personal opinion.
For a while I considered the name “Theistic Satanism free speech zone” but decided against that name because it sounded too inviting.