The Future of Vive

As the tech director for vive, here's what I plan for the future:

- things are no longer 'rejected'. Instead, the good things are shown preferentially, and bad articles/submissions are just shunted off into the cobweb filled corners where the morbidly curious can find them.

- there are no moderators. Instead, everyone gets a say on whether they think an article, or a comment, is worth their time. This is used to decide whether it is worth showing to everyone else. One user one vote, as the saying goes.

- editors exist only for editing; people are automatically picked to fix typos/etc based on the quality of their previous contributions (as decided on in the above point). Everyone would start from a clean slate.

- people are rated as well as stories. So a particular user can decide to only view posts by users with positive karma, or whatever.

These measures, i.e. decentralising control completely, should solve all of your concerns technologically instead of legislatively. For anyone familiar with slashdot's moderation, it will be similar to that, but hopefully less clunky. I just need to find time to implement this system, as always.

---
Jesse

Well, let's just nip this one in the bud, shall we? to resolve the conflict over partisan posting on Vive Conflict? Change only comes from conflict. Partisan posting? In the comments, or the stories? For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume you're the same Anon that posted <a href='http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20040607150610299'>this</a> article. Therefore, I assume your remarks regarding 'Partisan Posting' are because the owner of this site has a known political bias. So? We all have political biases, and <a href='http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20040608142758413'>Susan</a> does not hide hers behind a veil of anonymity. In fact, if you are the same person, you have the same number of stories in the past week as her. If you are not, I apologise and suggest you sign up for an account so we can tell the difference. Anon posting has it's drawbacks too. (1). Editors who become candidates or position holders in a politcal party should not have to resign as editors of Vive. Instead, anything such editors wish to post should be reviewed by the other editors... I can assure everyone that this already happens. Susan is free to post stories whenever she wants. For the last couple weeks, everything has gone through Jesse or myself. Susan has not been involved, as far as I can tell, except to post her own two stories. The way the site is designed, Editors may post anything without review of another editor - what would be the point? Someone watching the watchers? Who would watch them? If you want that ability, I'd suggest getting your own website. (2). All rejected submissions, including those of "affiliated" editors should be posted on a seperate page linked to on the main page of Vive. No. They are rejected for a reason. Putting up spam or porn or duplicate stories etc. somewhere else on the board defeats the purpose of rejecting them. If you want a story posted that meets Vive criteria, post it in the forum (can't see the forum? You need a free account!). Everyone is free to post their comments or start a new thread - just stay in the guidelines outlined in the FAQ, and we're all good. (3). Vive le Canada must always have one "neutral" editor to review submissions of "affiliated" editors. There is no such animal. Everyone has a bias. I like to think I'm about as neutral in editing as I can be. The FAQ is my guide, plus my opinion on what will generate discussion - the prime function of a discussion board such as this. The owners of this site and members of the advisory board are free to diagree with me as they see fit. That is my moral measuring stick. My comments, or stories I've edited and posted can be deleted at any time. My ability to edit, or post for that matter can be removed at any time - and I would take no offence at that. I'm playing in someone elses' sandbox, and am free to take my ball and go home. In the future, I will not post any further articles that appear to be aimed at the ownership of this site. Feel free to post any articles with your own views with respect to politics or party platforms. This is not a place for personal attacks, and articles in the last couple days seem to be leaning that way. all progressive voices must feel they have an equal stake in Vive regardless of political affiliation if the site is to remain the positive force it is. Notice I took my rant into the comments, rather than outright rejecting this story? I came here as a hard core right-wing-conservative-facist to what I felt was a very left-of-centre leaning discussion forum. I only percieved it as such because ethier us Red Tories weren't speaking up, or because there weren't enough of us here. I will admit to slowly sliding left as my time here wears on, and will continue to slide until I skip right over the Liberal position. Now, I hope all 'progressive voices' will start writing articles, and posting comments. I can't be the only guy holding up the right-of-centre!--- "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain 
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

Written By: Anonymous
Date: 2004-06-10 13:13:00
<a href="/article/115547512-the-future-of-vive">Article Link</a>

(1). Editors who become candidates or position holders in a politcal party should not have to resign as editors of Vive. Instead, anything such editors wish to post should be reviewed by the other editors of Vive who are not candidates or positions holders in a party. These "neutral" editors would review the posting in question to see if it has the appearance of a conflict of interest. That is, if the editor's post appears to be soliciting partisan information or support. If this is the case the "neutral" editors should ask the "affiliated" editor to revise the post, or if this is not possible, reject the post for publication. General statements of opinion, argument, debate or party position by "affiliated" editors should not be construed as conflicts of interest as long as opposing viewpoints are given the opportunity to state their case. (2). All rejected submissions, including those of "affiliated" editors should be posted on a seperate page linked to on the main page of Vive. This way readers can see for themselves what is accepted and rejected and assure themselves of the neutrality of the site. (3). Vive le Canada must always have one "neutral" editor to review submissions of "affiliated" editors. My personal opinion is that in the future Vive will grow stronger and have a greater impact on the national life of this country. As this happens, it is reasonable to expect that more editors, because they are motivated and active, will become candidates or organizers for political parties. We do not want Vive to loose these talented people because of their political involvement (which we applaud). At the same time, all progressive voices must feel they have an equal stake in Vive regardless of political affiliation if the site is to remain the positive force it is. If a fair process is adopted now, Vive will sail confidently into the future.

Anon, I don't think there's a problem with partisan editing. This website represents the views of the contributors. If you wish for a more even political discussion, then bring on some more righties.

This site has been accused of being leftist, or NDP-related. That is simply not so. It's just that most of the people who visit it and contribute are leftist. And a lot are pro-NDP. A lot of others are Greens, Libs, or Cons. I welcome more discussion from the right because either you'll convince me of a truth I had missed, or I'll convince you. Or perhaps we'll drift to some positive middle grounds.

And one more thing Anon... please register and give yourself a sign-off name. Registering doesn't give the site any ability to track you or anything like that. It just gives us a way of connecting which comments you've made. And to take them more seriously because if you post anonymously, we never know if you're going to come back or not, so sometimes some of us will skim over your posts (I know I do when I have a lot to respond to).

-KY

---
Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

ALso, I just wanted to say that I think Susan does her absolute best in trying to find people of different views to fill the positions on this site. Dr Caleb has a huge right-wing presence to counter Susan's NDP leanings. And to be honest, articles SHOULD be partisan and SHOULD be trying to support the views of a particular party, but they should also vary in their leanings. That is, we need more contributors from the right. So write down your arguments in a non-hateful manner with no racism, or any of that kinda stuff. And they'll be posted for others to read and discuss.

And expect them to generate a lot of discussion. A lot of lefties here are used to defending their views. Don't feel hurt if your arguments are under attack. This is election time and a lot of us are pretty fired up.

---
Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Some may have noticed in the last article I submitted to Vive, I made sure that it was clear I was a candidate for the CAP. Others should and probably would do the same to make sure that others can clarify it with ease if they so choose.

I find the outline noted above to be fair and in line with most other organizations.

As always, good work Vive, and keep up the good fight.

Roy Whyte

In the future, I will not post any further articles that appear to be aimed at the ownership of this site. So, if someone discovered some past statement of Susan's that was detrimental to her as a candidate, you wouldn't post it? (This is significant--the NDP got some bad press in Edmonton this week when one of their candidates was confronted with past remarks that were construed as anti-semitic). That's censorship right there. It seems some people on Vive are more equal than others. The conflict of interest remains.

(2) All rejected submissions (excluding obvious hate, racist or pornogrphic materials) etc etc

"Neutral" editor shall be defined as someone holding no position as a candidate, organizer or executive with a political party. "Affiliated" editor shall be defined as someone holding a position (or positions) as a candidate, organizer or executive with a political party. These terms are meant only to address the appearance of a conflict of interest, and in no way address personally held beliefs, including support or membership in a political party.

(2) All rejected submissions (excluding obvious hate, racist or pornogrphic materials) etc etc That pretty much elimantes all deleted submissions. I haven't deleted anything in the last 2 weeks that didn't fall into those categories. Everything else made the section or front pages. Everything.--- "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain 
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

These terms are meant only to address the appearance of a conflict of interest So again - who edits the editors, and who edits them? And with ~8 - 10 stories a day, what would be the point of multiple layers of editors?--- "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain 
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

Ahhh, you amuse me. If anyone has posted something on the Internet damaging to their campaign, you're welcome to find it and make the world aware of it. As far as I'm concerned, the point is moot. My opinions have changed from participating on this forum. If anyone wants to hold anything I posted 10 years ago on the Internet (like the case you mention) I would consider that childish. I'm sure this candidate's views have changed since he posted those comments. If Susan were to post anything here that was anti-semetic, after I got my heart restarted, I would delete those comments, as I would if anyone else were to post such drivel. That is not 'censorship'. You might want to look up the definition of such big words before you use them. You have the right to think and say what you want. You do not have the right to be heard. As above, this is someone elses sandbox. If you or anyone else wishes to post anything that goes against the stated Vive policy - it will be deleted.--- "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain 
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

Keep up the good work, Doc.

I've had a few items deleted, and I've learned from that.

---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

Flick here, posting from Toronto. (which seems to be
sending a whack of NDP to Ottawa, yay!).

I think it's silly for an anonymous poster to demand that
identified people should be filtered for partisanship.
Think about it. How are we going to know what
affiliations this anonymous poster has, motivating him /
her to suggest such a thing? Ridiculous.

Please, no demands from anonymous posters that
everyone's bias be clearly identified. What a laff.

I don`t know, I don`t see anything partisan or biased on this site. Right wing minded people have posted their columns,comments, and stories on this site, with fiery debate to follow. Doc and I have traded swipes many times. So, I hope free speech is allowed to prevail!

---
Dave Ruston