Board ownership

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Sorry if this continues the shitstorm but this is really more of a general question and isn't really "about" the banning/thread locking of this past weekend (though it reminded me I've been meaning to ask about this).

There have been a couple of instances lately where people have cited board ownership (i.e. "this is my board") when making decisions about modding etc. I think it would be helpful to actually lay out if board ownership is a real thing; if so, which boards are owned by whom; and what the rules/restrictions are regarding board ownership. Like: a) how does an individual get to own a board? Will a mod just create a board for anyone who asks? b) is the board owner the ultimate authority or are the ILX mods? etc.

I know this might open up a can of worms but I honestly think clarification might be helpful re: these points. Sorry if there was discussion of it on the other threads, I didn't really read them in full.

congratulations (n/a), Monday, 5 April 2010 17:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah also wondering this

plax (ico), Monday, 5 April 2010 17:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

board pwnership

404s & Heartbreak (jim in glasgow), Monday, 5 April 2010 17:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

Good question.

jam master (jaymc), Monday, 5 April 2010 18:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

I don't know that there is a coherent, unified policy with regards to board ownership. The baseline position has evolved over the years to one where no one person or group of people owns any boards, including the site mods; even the 2? 3? people who have full access rights to everything that makes up the website don't consider themselves "owners" of ILX. The general idea now is that the boards are "owned" by the people who participate on them and the moderators exist to facilitate conversation, whether that be by removing disruptive posts/posters, editing erroneous information or moving threads to a more suitable place for the conversation. There are some instances where this broad idea doesn't make as much sense; the Aeon Flux board, for example, could be seen as being owned by its moderator due to the subject matter and the low amount of traffic it generates. However, as a general statement that is how the site mods and the technical cru see the boards; moderators help shape the personality of the discourse on the sub-boards but the way conversation plays out should ultimately be driven by the posters on that board.

Wood shavings! Laughing out loud! (HI DERE), Monday, 5 April 2010 18:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

for example, a mod might temp ban someone who spent 24 hours posting the same picture over and over on discussions that other people were clearly interested in having

Wood shavings! Laughing out loud! (HI DERE), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

So basically it sounds like board ownership is not a real thing, really.

congratulations (n/a), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

i.e. in the sense claimed by kate on ILTMI or roxy on 1p3

congratulations (n/a), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

it's a girl thing, really.

doobieborther, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

of course not. ilx hates strong women and would never allow them to own anything

mookieproof, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^save-a-ho

tehresa, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

lol

mookieproof, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

How does one 'get' a board?

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.getaboard.org/

velko, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

i feel sort of simultaneously glad & disappointed that i was totally unaware of there having been a 'shitstorm' on ilx this weekend

thomp, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

wish it had been today; i'm kinda bored

mookieproof, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

i been tryin to start one but jj is in mellow form and hi dere is eastery and tbh it's a dead loss.

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

seems like it's over and i'm sad

harbl, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

xp (for instance)

for example, a mod might temp ban someone who spent 24 hours posting the same picture over and over on discussions that other people were clearly interested in having

― Wood shavings! Laughing out loud! (HI DERE), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:03 (29 minutes ago)

I'm not questioning this course of action, but I'd be curious as to whether there are any repercussions on, say, a subboard mod that went on a spree of blatant and petulant abuse of their powers. Seems a more serious issue than posting an image to a few threads.

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

Generally speaking, you could expect to see that subboard mod have their powers taken away and someone else put in their place.

Wood shavings! Laughing out loud! (HI DERE), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

To be more specific- I'm aware that subboards have historically played fast and loose in a way that sitewide mods can't, but 'Site New Answers' has changed the whole dynamic imo and I'm just curious as to what kind of rules we're looking at here.

xp fairy nuff- I wasn't sure that that had happened or w/e. Hail enbb i for one bow to our new etc

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

It does depend to a large degree on the subboard; for example, lol mod abuse was very much a cornerstone to noise board interaction, so you would have to do something particularly egregious and possibly illegal in order to be a noise board mod and have your powers taken away from you (like, for example, hacking the board to steal a sitemod's credentials).

Wood shavings! Laughing out loud! (HI DERE), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

i'll try my best not to do that on 'I Love Football' (when you get around to creating it), then.

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

i still don't know why i'm not an IRE mod

harbl, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

if it ever becomes I Hate Everything again you should be

velko, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

; )

harbl, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

Since people have contributed to the servers on the entire site, it seems a little wrong for someone to 'own' one board, non?

Il suffit de ne pas l'envier (Michael White), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm not questioning this course of action, but I'd be curious as to whether there are any repercussions on, say, a subboard mod that went on a spree of blatant and petulant abuse of their powers. Seems a more serious issue than posting an image to a few threads.

― Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Monday, April 5, 2010 2:35 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

in the end I don't think that kate locking/deleting a thread on ILTMI is a "serious issue," it's just childish and frustrating that she did it because she didn't want to face up to someone questioning her beliefs. but I'd rather let kate have her forum where she feels she can express herself freely than do something that would run her off.

still driving steen, banning deez, gettin my dick xhuxked (Curt1s Stephens), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^^make curt1s a site mod

william mcgonadal's tay ridge disaster (acoleuthic), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

xp poll

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Monday, 5 April 2010 19:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

what a gay message board mod

velko, Monday, 5 April 2010 19:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

would like to petition that darraghmac never be appointed I Love Football mod.

niminy-piminy cricket (Upt0eleven), Monday, 5 April 2010 20:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

you'll get yours.

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Monday, 5 April 2010 20:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

'give' de subjectivisten to kate

mookieproof, Monday, 5 April 2010 20:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

but don't tell any of the dutchies beforehand

harbl, Monday, 5 April 2010 20:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

you'll get yours.

my borad? sweet.

although tbh it would likely make cogh look like a thriving metropolis so i think i'll pass.

niminy-piminy cricket (Upt0eleven), Monday, 5 April 2010 20:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

77 was and is owned by the people

still driving steen, banning deez, gettin my dick xhuxked (Curt1s Stephens), Monday, 5 April 2010 20:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

( <3 COGH btw )

niminy-piminy cricket (Upt0eleven), Monday, 5 April 2010 20:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

but I'd rather let kate have her forum where she feels she can express herself freely than do something that would run her off.

She has Twitter and blogs and Facebook, etc. to freely express herself, there's no reason to facilitate her by handing over an entire board that other people participate in.

a cross between lily allen and fetal alcohol syndrome (milo z), Monday, 5 April 2010 21:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

Since people have contributed to the servers on the entire site, it seems a little wrong for someone to 'own' one board, non?

― Il suffit de ne pas l'envier (Michael White), Monday, April 5, 2010 7:56 PM (1 hour ago)

i totes agree with this, and im all against the principal of board ownership but like, at the same time, lolbanning etc maybe requires like a partic type of ownership and i think like no boys allowed etc

plax (ico), Monday, 5 April 2010 21:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

the noize board, for example, is owned by j0n willi@ms

jeff, Monday, 5 April 2010 21:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

I definitely think ownership is the wrong word to describe this thing -- "custodianship" is more like it.

my full government name (WmC), Monday, 5 April 2010 21:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

borad curator

velko, Monday, 5 April 2010 21:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

tbh no matter how u feel abt this theres no way to stop ppl thinking they own the place

plax (ico), Monday, 5 April 2010 21:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

"strut around" is cute imo

mr. waffles (Nijoli), Monday, 5 April 2010 22:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

thats like the most surmounter post ever to have been not posted by surmounter imo

plax (ico), Monday, 5 April 2010 22:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

the way i personally see it is thus: Nobody owns a thread, nobody owns a board, the only people who own ILX are those who pay for it's servers. As long as everybody acts decent, it's cool. But even boards specifically made for people (77, 1p3, TMI, The Cape, heck I had the underused ILG Players Club) are not those people's boards. Mods aren't usurping anyone's power, they're serving to make an attempt to keep the dialogue neutral and open and posi and they'll prune anything/one required to keep that the status quo, up to and including board and site mods.

but i'm just a guy

forksclovetofu, Monday, 5 April 2010 22:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^this is fine and all but its kinda boring, mod terrorism on the subboards can b kinda fun. just feel like iltmi is a special case bc it has a specifici function wrt things ppl obviously wanna have real convs abt that other ppl might wanna avoid bc of nsfw/squeamish/prudishness w/e

plax (ico), Monday, 5 April 2010 22:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

i owned a board once. i gave it away. we cool.

✌.✰|ʘ‿ʘ|✰.✌ (Steve Shasta), Monday, 5 April 2010 22:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

plax is right, no one talks about anything very serious on 1p3 and no one gets seriously butthurt when they are occasionally lolbanned or their threads are locked. on the other hand, for whatever reason, people really were into discussing the color of their poop, so kate's totaliatarian leanings are a little less endearing and she shouldn't be a mod unless she can chill out a little

maderator (k3vin k.), Monday, 5 April 2010 22:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

"Mod terrorism" as practiced on IRE, IP3, ITR, etc still promotes and encourages discourse and, as such, isn't contradictory towards anything Forks said.

I disagree that donating money buys you a stake in ILX btw.

Wood shavings! Laughing out loud! (HI DERE), Monday, 5 April 2010 22:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

serving to make an attempt to keep the dialogue neutral and open and posi

not even sure about this as a stated aim tbph

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 10:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

nega 4 life

rip sarah silverman 3/19/10 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 10:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

I disagree that donating money buys you a stake in ILX btw

Damn straight and I don't feel it shd really be brought up to back any opinion ever

Top Geir (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 11:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

^ did not give

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 11:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

ilx plc.

niminy-piminy cricket (Upt0eleven), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 11:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

iirc the last fundraiser we had happened real fast and some people who wanted to contribute didn't get a chance, but those issues aside it's an irrelevance - ILX has always been much more than the sum of the regrettably necessary dirty finance it occasionally has to dabble with

Top Geir (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 11:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

ILX IS A FEELING

Top Geir (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 11:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

You have tried to insert a duplicate message.

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 11:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

v did not give either, tbf v

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 11:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

oh i missed your first ^ lol

Top Geir (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 11:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

"You have tried to insert a duplicate message"

has potential as a meme, with the right decisions made early on in the effort

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Tuesday, 6 April 2010 11:18 (eight years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.