Quote from a comment that just got posted by Hannob:
"I clicked on a few links and Googled a few names. It's roughly what I'd expect: People with few publications now working in other fields, people without scientific publications, but university degrees, people who regularly speak at events from radiation critics, people who are invested in other fringe theories."
Seems to me that the people complaining about people not clicking on links in the article shouldn't believe everything they read without checking who wrote it...
aside from the cost for entry, that's the same sentiment that led to why i no longer contribute to wikipedia. zero censorship is too little; any is too much.
i'd love to hear your description of this working - you don't need to mention where it is specifically because that would of course, ruin it.
They're talking about Something Awful, which is widely regarded as having very successfully run its forums with a lot of fun, trollish behavior without losing the overall good vibe of the community, by doing exactly what he said.
This site has been online since ~1997, I think, so I think most of the oldtimers know it already. It follows the basic rule of "live by your words and be ready to do as you say". There are sub-rules, also, like "do not post if your post doesn't contribute to the thread". Unwritten rules also exist, that somehow curb the eternal september: "don't post for the first few years, just read". There is no concept of karma there, only thread rating, which IMO helps prevent karma-whoring, as it focuses not on individual, but rather a collaborative effort to make an epic thread. The mods are subject to these rules as well: I've seen mods banned by other mods and mods probating themselves for breaking their rules... i've spent my 10$ some five years ago, and, frankly, it was a good decision I would make again.
there's maybe a model that describes this because its just a casual observation i am making, not based on data.
but i believe that online meet-up spots are similar to physically hosting a party. people in-the-know show up in small numbers to a place, and now the time-and-place has turned into a 'party with the cool people'.
on a graph, y-axis is coolness and x-axis is time - typical -x^2 graph where the party hits a coolest point but as time progresses, more and more people who bring noise, low energy, cynicism, and karma grinding show up and kill the party.
but well before the maximum coolness, the original people that turned the party into a real instance, they already got bored and left for the 'after party', which is just the N+1 party instance.
if we calculate how to predict N+1, the algorithm that did it is instantly invalid, so there's no answer to where the next cool party is. i believe it generally starts off as something quasi private, but with some invariable public entry that allows it to grow enough that it eventually gets ruined.
consider all the closed door parties, like private forums, that have been stable brown dwarfs that exist for almost forever - we can't list those here because it's a violation of the rules, to admit they exist.
by the time we all realize where the next place to have these cordial, bourbon sipping, armchair style message forum posts, all the cool people will already have moved into the next room in. and this room will have a coat room full of people taking their coats off, ready to move into where the perceived cool party is happening.
it's neat. i'm not in the cool party and i never will be, but it's still fascinating to get to chat with people on here who are still serious and adhere to whatever the culture here is. i liken it to how i would act differently if i snuck into a golf resort. i have no idea what i am doing but i can fake it just enough to avoid detection.
