This is just creating a privileged class of posters who get a little ribbon and something to lose.
We must consider the effects on behavior such a condition will make. It may achieve its goals or it may not, but I'm not even sure what the goals of this site are anymore, so whether the effects of this move would achieve ends in line with the greater project of the site is something I can't answer.
For my part, I do not care for the idea, although I understand what it seeks to address in allowing people into the site while strictly maintaining a comfortable environment. My feeling is that it will achieve neither of these things well.
Allowing people into a site with limited functionality while explicitly subject to the discipline of senior members is not a broadly appealing offer when we must admit that there is, earned or unearned, but certainly real, resentment towards hierarchies present on the site.
While this may result in a more secure-feeling environment for established and marginalized users, it is predicated on a trust between established users that will be difficult to maintain in the presence of more weight behind what has become a serious wedge issue.
Everyone fucks up. Does this policy intend to give greater latitude to established users and treat them charitably when they transgress our norms? Then it will alienate new users and reinforce the hierarchy. Does this policy intend to treat everyone equally in terms of moderation, save for giving privileges and moderation tools only to established users? Then established users will still be wary of transgression and hesitate to disturb things or question any orthodoxy; however, they will still have the power to act against each other, and especially new users. In fact, it would be prudent for someone who seeks to control this community (for whatever trivial reason) to exercise this power and ensure that the only people with the power to moderate are those who agree with them. I suppose at that point, you could have a nice, comfy forum of whoever's left, if the bad taste of struggle sessions wherein there is a privileged class doesn't turn them away, too.
These are my concerns. They paint a picture specifically of potential problems resulting from this policy. The actual outcomes would of course be different in some way or another, but I contend we must seriously consider these concerns and whether the outcomes of this policy would be in line with what is desired for the project of this site.
if the metrics are objective (and not too hard to attain) and anyone who's here in good faith can achieve it I don't see it as a bad thing. this would allow for users to have more say in what goes on with the site while also enabling mods/admins to more easily discern people who are trying to stir up drama from those with legitimate grievances.
if we need to in the future, this would also allow us to more easily hold mod/admin elections, referendums on site decisions, etc.
This is just creating a privileged class of posters who get a little ribbon and something to lose.
We must consider the effects on behavior such a condition will make. It may achieve its goals or it may not, but I'm not even sure what the goals of this site are anymore, so whether the effects of this move would achieve ends in line with the greater project of the site is something I can't answer.
For my part, I do not care for the idea, although I understand what it seeks to address in allowing people into the site while strictly maintaining a comfortable environment. My feeling is that it will achieve neither of these things well.
Everyone fucks up. Does this policy intend to give greater latitude to established users and treat them charitably when they transgress our norms? Then it will alienate new users and reinforce the hierarchy. Does this policy intend to treat everyone equally in terms of moderation, save for giving privileges and moderation tools only to established users? Then established users will still be wary of transgression and hesitate to disturb things or question any orthodoxy; however, they will still have the power to act against each other, and especially new users. In fact, it would be prudent for someone who seeks to control this community (for whatever trivial reason) to exercise this power and ensure that the only people with the power to moderate are those who agree with them. I suppose at that point, you could have a nice, comfy forum of whoever's left, if the bad taste of struggle sessions wherein there is a privileged class doesn't turn them away, too.
These are my concerns. They paint a picture specifically of potential problems resulting from this policy. The actual outcomes would of course be different in some way or another, but I contend we must seriously consider these concerns and whether the outcomes of this policy would be in line with what is desired for the project of this site.
if the metrics are objective (and not too hard to attain) and anyone who's here in good faith can achieve it I don't see it as a bad thing. this would allow for users to have more say in what goes on with the site while also enabling mods/admins to more easily discern people who are trying to stir up drama from those with legitimate grievances.
if we need to in the future, this would also allow us to more easily hold mod/admin elections, referendums on site decisions, etc.
edit: oh fuck you edited more stuff into it
yeah, sorry about that.