Can you explain a bit more about your comment on my comment. We were engaged in a pretty good conversation when repated "fresh thread" messages appeared. When I went there everyone was doing "I'm first"! Seemd silly to me.

Edited by author 06-13-2007 10:45 PM
To buttress the points I've been making, I give you this post from the FDL blog:

---

---

raven @ 6

We are supposed to rush over from the other thread so we can play duck duck goose?

---

---

I put it to you that this sort of comment is symptomatic of forcing what "wants to be" a BBS-style posting into a blog-style model. "The math doesn't work," as a certain Preznit would say. :)

Please remember, I am most emphatically not advocating the use of QT as the FDL BBS engine. Totally the wrong user model here.

Edited by author 06-13-2007 02:38 PM
A BBS (for such is imho what we need) will not succeed in FDL's context unless it is implemented using some or all of these guidelines:

1. It should be frontpaged on FDL — that is, a pointer to it should appear there. On the way in, there might be a brief description of how the BBS and FDL blog interact...
   
2. Once people arrive at the BBS, they should be encouraged to register and then to login using their usual anonymous FDL "handle" or "nickname." (Many modern browsers (e.g., FireFox) offer the facility to remember usernames and passwords, such that whenever you return you are already logged in as yourself.)
   All the BBSes I have ever seen offer registration with a known, true, never-shown email address; this is for verification that there's a real person who is registering, rather than a 'bot, and as a place where email-type subscriptions can be delivered, should the user choose that optiion.
   
   
3. People should be free to start up any topic they want, except in one particular section: Topics tied to particular FDL blog-posts. In that section, there should be one Topic per base Blog Post.
    
   
   There should be another section for upcoming events. It should be the responsibility for someone (the Mods or their delegated person(s) to take that info, which can be contributed by anyone, and transfer it into the FDL Calendar (q.v. elsewhere).
   
   There might be another section called "Miscellany" and another for "Casual chatter"... implementation decisions.
   
4. During the on-FDL-blog "life" of a Topic, the only venue for discussing it should be, as is usual and expected, the FDL comments on the post. As soon as the post is superseded by another, comments in the blog on that post should be closed, and all further comment should be placed in the BBS Topic associated with that Topic. This is reflective of the reasons people like to post in a "live FDL post's" comment string: They know that the "currently online crowd of FDL community members" will see and maybe pay attention to what they write. However, when a new post comes along, the crowd moves along too, leaving a few sorry stragglers to continue the abandoned conversation, then finally realizing that something new is under discussion, and move on themselves.
   
   This is the reason we appreciate the "new topic upstairs" convention. If comments are closed, possibly with a pointer to continued conversation in the corresponding BBS Topic, the existence of a new Topic would be unmistakable, and the "new thread upstairs" convention would be obviated.
   
   Consider what will happen to our "EPU" and "OT" conventions.
   
   If a BBS is implemented according to this sketch, nothing would ever be OT — there is always an appropriate other topic where formerly OT comments can be placed, and the "Unseen Topics" function will ensure that the crowd of other FDL'ers will come across your "formerly OT" musings. Thus the crowd can read, asynchronously to the current Base Post, whatever "formerly OT" thing you want to say.
   
   The "EPU" would similarly be less necessary, since the BBS's Unseen Topics command will ensure that the crowd will read it as they read through the comments given during the on-Blog life of the base post, and thereafter in the BBS Topic associated with that blog Topic.
   
5. It is an implementation decision on whether (a) the BBS Topic should contain the full text of the FDL "base post" or just a pointer back into FDL. (I lean to having only a pointer back into FDL, with only the main Topic Heading surviving. (e.g, "Yet Another Dynamic DOJ Duo"or " Standard WaPo BS").
   
6. It is an implementation decision on whether all comments made directly into the FDL comments on that "base post" be transformed into BBS "replies" to that "base post." So, for a very busy Topic that had perhaps 326 replies before being superseded by another, the BBS Topic corresponding to that base post would already have 326 replies before being opened for commentary. I, for one, would like this option. And lest you think that this would produce a welter of commentary for people to read, this would not occur with a good BBS's "Unseen Topics" functionality and reverse-chronological ordering of replies.
   
7. All the above mechanisms will bind the FDL blog closely and productively to its "sister BBS," making them symbiotic and "sum greater than the parts." If hit-rate is important because ad revenue is tied to it on the BBS, fine-and-dandy. The BBS should be implemented with space for advertisers too; and then, since the "FDL blog/sister BBS" pairing will become more attractive, users will use it more and ad revenues will increase concomitantly.
   
8. It may well be that the proprietors of FDL (whom I don't know personally, I just respect them a whole lot!!) are uncomfortable with the notion of "opening up" FDL to BBS-style commentary. To them, I say: The FDL community you have created with your efforts and intelligence has grown too large for the simple blog model. Imho if you meld the existing blog more-or-less untouched with a symbiotic BBS, I confidently predict that FDL will experience a second level of growth as your online functionality expands to more fully serve the needs of its community. The FaceBook, with its FDL group, is/was a valiant attempt, but it's imho not the right tool to blend with FDL.

OK folks, whaddayathink? Over to you.

Edited by author 06-13-2007 02:13 PM
Pach just sent this out:

Upcoming Events
To the members of Firedoglake
 
Pachacutec Firedoglake
Today at 10:08am
Reply
Just a heads up:

1) Tomorrow June 14 at 1:30 PM EST, Scooter Libby will have his bond hearing, and tomorrow by the end of the day, Judge Walton is expected to rule on whether or not Libby will be free pending the completion of his appeal. Walton has said he is inclined to lock Scooter up, but briefs have been filed now by both sides on the questions in play. I'll be covering this at Firedoglake live from the courthouse.

2) If you are near or can get yourself to the Take Back America Conference in Washington, DC next week, give it a shot.

Jane has a post about it here http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/11/to-answer-your-question/

On the basis of this helpful info, some observations:

1. This important message will not get to all the members of the FDL community; there are some who haven't signed up yet, and there are others who will never do so because of the lack of anonymity. Plus them who who haven't heard of it (because of its lack of frontpaging) or who don't want to use FB because they don't like it for some other reason.
2. I've taken the info about Libby's bond hearing and added it to the FDL.shared.info calendar. You can see that info in there, without having to log into Google, or even having a Google account, here: [1].
   
   
   FYI, the (non-hyperized!) labels you see at the beginning of calendar events — [1] [2] [3] — these notations arose from a conversation with selise, who suggested it would be "nice-to-have" a mechanism by which one could filter for only those items having to do with a particular subset of the FDL Calendar. Google's Calendar doesn't offer such at the moment, so I've taken a stab at prioritizing event importance, with [1] meaning "all FDLers will want to check this out," [2] "of middling importance," and [3] meaning "we should list this but only the most devoted FDLer will be following this." Beggars can't be choosers, sez I... :) Natch, any other categorization scheme is possible, implementer's choice.
   
   There is a full intro to how FDL might use this form of calendaring, over here: [2] .
   
   Thus you can see that fully functional calendaring is available and already implemented, should FDL choose to support it (1) by keeping its database current, and (2) by encouraging FDLers to use it.
3. I put it to you that Jane's helpful intro that Pach mentioned above will never be found by latecomers who missed that blog-posting. Some way is needed of keeping a record of info that lasts beyond the normal 2- or 3-hour life of a blogpost.

More later...

FaceBook offers functions like "Friending." Why should I care who I am friends with, within FDL? I can see where this function is very useful in the normal User Context of FB, but it is totally extraneous to the open "FDL community." Another reason for my feeling that FB is the wrong tool for what FDL needs. YMMV and if so, please comment!

[1] wherein MarkH notes the difficulty of maintaining FDL's comment etiquette... :)

[1] wherein dakine01 continues the "topic drift," discussing conventions on FDL rather than (I would have thought more appropriate in this "string,") conventions in FB.

[1] wherein demi aka dmoore describes how s/he learned the social rules involved with posting on FDL and joining its community of commenters.(this begins a "thread diversion" wherein later commenters follow this lead, beginning to discuss that rather than the social conventions in FaceBook...)

[1] wherein Elliott thanks selise and S.O.S. from MA

[1] wherein selise says, in response to Eliot @50, "i’m only doing senate and house committee hearings… :( but, S.O.S. from MA is working on a calendar to mark important dates for us firepups."

---

Quoth Dan: "In fact, the calendar is done and ready-to-go, and I've fully explained it here: [2]. All that's needed is someone (or a group of someones) to take over the responsibility of entering event data and maintaining the FDL.shared.info account within Google Calendar. Then, any FirePup who wants to can view the calendar simply by clicking here [3], – no matter whether they are logged into Google or not."

[1] Raven's followup to the previous "string-within-a-string" — where raven, speaking about FB's requirement for full real names, says "I bailed when I read that."

Edited by author 06-12-2007 08:51 PM
[1] will take you to selise's followup to my original posting— it will appear in this same window, so use your browser's BACK button to return here.

In this followup posting, selise follows up dmac's observation that FaceBook (FB) requires people to register with their correct names, and observes "don’t know how we’re going to get around that one."

I found a way to register in FB without using my real name — I found that Sos von Ma was accepted. Apparently FB is happy to welcome German nobility into its ranx. :)

I've seen other creative ways of adding FDL "handles" to the full name that is required at registration —

OK, back to my normal logged-in account.

Wondering how to display these messages in the other time-order? Click on the little triangle to the right of "Messages" in the lighter-blue bar.

Of course, nuttin to prevent anyone from signing anyone else's name to a post — (anyone who isn't logged in can do this) — but then, they don't get the little gray star signifying that they're actually logged in under that name.