|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: February 26, 2003 WebWord Comment -- The new World Trade Center design has been chosen. I wonder how the final design was picked. What happens behind the scenes exactly?
Reader Comments...
That they would build *anything* more than a memorial on the site where thousands of people died is a tribute to the soullessness of corporate America. I will never visit New York. Posted by: Aunt Samantha on February 27, 2003 12:21 AM
We are crushed, simply crushed. Whatever shall we do without you? What happens behind the scenes exactly?
A better pic would have been nice. Posted by: on February 27, 2003 08:47 AM
Adam, could you please explain your commentary? Posted by: WTF! on February 27, 2003 11:23 AM
Yeah, Adam, are you cracking jokes about the deaths of several thousand people? You think that's funny? Why has John allowed you crapassholish post to remain? Posted by: Incensed on March 1, 2003 11:44 AM
c'mon guys...Adam is responding to Aunt Sarahs comment about never coming to New York (albeit with a poor choice of words considering), then commenting on the initial question posed. Posted by: on March 1, 2003 12:44 PM
How is "blowjobs" a response to a serious comment about a memorial to lost loved ones? If you can't be respectful, don't talk. Posted by: Matt on March 1, 2003 07:31 PM
Oh, good god. It's not just the misguided developers and city/state/Port Authority folks, you know; I was at the Winter Garden to *listen to actual New Yorkers* passionately, surprisingly knowledgably and above all sincerely discuss their reactions to the site renovation plans. Isn't this what we're supposed to do as usability porfessionals? Understand an audience's desires and motivations? They live there, you don't. They want something inspiring to fill the GAPING, HORRENDOUS VOID IN THE SKYLINE that affects most of them more than you can ever understand, and you want them to live with a permanent reminder of what they've suffered. (I *do* happen to think whatever is built needs to come to terms with the violence and loss in a way a conventional building generally cannot, but this is a different discussion.) So, AFAIC, stay the hell out of New York and good riddance to you. 2. How do you ever get the idea that my joke is at the expense of anyone who died on September 11th? Read, you cowardly, anonymous weasels ("Incensed," "WTF!"): I am referring to the closed-selection process. And while, no, I do not literally believe that fellatio has much to do with selecting the final design, you better believe there are analogous financial/political acts of quid pro quo going on. That the popular sentiment was consulted at all in this case is nothing short of a miracle, and is testiment to the fact that the selection authorities wraped their mind around the once-in-a-lifetime gravity of this moment. Or do you think that even this process was free of the sausage-factory trappings of municipal decision making? I stand by my words. Posted by: Adam on March 1, 2003 10:39 PM
Yes John, I'm all for censoring Adam. He's rude, crude and unhelpful. Posted by: Aunt Samantha on March 1, 2003 11:57 PM
At least he has the integrity to sign his own name to his comments. Posted by: Howard on March 2, 2003 02:11 AM
Don't censor comments if they are relevent to your original posting. You set up a website that allows people to comment. Therefore, you should accept the responsibility to allow all voices to be heard, no matter that they sound different than everyone else. Now, about the WTC: I think that combining a memorial alongside new buildings is the right way to go. In fact, I would've like to see them rebuild the WTC buildings exactly as before only taller. This would show that you can knock us down but we'll get back up everytime. Posted by: TB Sheets on March 2, 2003 02:19 AM
Well spoken "Howard." Which Howard are you? I believe there are several million of you in this world. So it's your position we can be jerks as long as we sign our name. OK. I'll sign my name. Posted by: Bob Smith on March 2, 2003 11:49 AM
The anonymous posters are frequently friendlier, funnier and more affable than the "real" people on Web-Word.com. Posted by: Class Warfare on March 2, 2003 12:39 PM
John, I think webword is a great resource, and the professional and consistent way it is managed means I can often refer work colleagues to items on the site. This sort of content reduces the credibility of your site, and makes it unsuitable for professional environments. If I was in your position I would not hesitate in censoring anything that makes it unsuitable for some audiences. Keep the site accessible to all! Posted by: on March 2, 2003 05:42 PM
I think we need a rating system for comments on web sites - you know like the ratings for movies that keep kiddies out of R-rated flicks, and the ones on TV that keep little Jimmy and Jane from watching "Will and Grace." John, I think the answer is based on two things: Brand and Audience. If Webword is a publishing place, then the brand is owned by the publisher. If it's a community, then control of the brand is usually more distributed, but the host/sponsor has a big say in things. It's your house, you make the rules. My thoughts on Adam's comment? I laughed, I cried, it moved me. Posted by: Lyle - Usability Superhero on March 2, 2003 11:55 PM
Rating is a great idea for moderation. But there are a couple of important things to consider. 1] users shouldn’t be allowed to see what others rated – to counter the herd instinct Rating is really the answer for those who are clueless how to moderate a list. It is surprising that it doesn’t find any takers. Another way is to have implicit rules and follow them without bias. Here a relevant one form HTMLhelp’s policies of using their forum. Respect Others Show respect to other BBS posters. Do not use inflammatory language or swearing. Do not be abusive or rude. Feel free to disagree with others, but do not attack, harass or embarrass other participants. In turn, please do not assume disrespect where there is none. Messages can be respectful and helpful even when they are terse, or when they raise issues without offering a specific solution.
I vote for John to allow himself the liberty to remove posts he deems unworthy of Webword. It's his site, and he can (and should) do what is necessary to keep the conversations focused and relevant. Posted by: Au Gratin on March 3, 2003 12:18 PM
You ought to feel free to censor anything posted under your domain. But publish the rules. This will let you take proper care of your brand - and site credibility - while still enabling open discussion. That´s not really censorship, just management.
Just read Lyle's post again. To clarify, when I mentioned rating I was referring to user rating - a mechanism through which users may rate a post on a given scale. I was not referring to a rating system in which the moderator specifies the level of unacceptable/acceptable content of a post. Posted by: Manu Sharma on March 3, 2003 04:30 PM
Why sensor something...censoring only ends up skewing reponses to the moderators thoughts and that is not the way to encourage free thought. What do you sensor, the original comment or those that have taken offense or those that vehemently complain about the comment.
This isn't a commune. WebWord is a slice of John's mind, and a few other people whom he let enter his portal to speak for him. It's OK for John to tell a user he doesn't appreciate their posts and to tell the user to go away, banning IPs if necessary, so that no user becomes a puppet master. When people are rude they exert their dominance over the rest of us (the victim, as well as the crowd watching) as a means to shut people up and have only one viewpoint known. John, as moderator, is responsible for looking out for us so that the discussions remain open. Posted by: Two Thumbs Up on March 3, 2003 06:28 PM
Well said, Two Thumbs Up. Succinct and direct. I know the word "censorship" has bad connotations, but I think there is a difference between censorship for personal reasons and censorship that facilitates community involvement. For instance, if I run a celebrity chat board, but I hate Don Knotts and I always remove references to him or pictures people post of him, that is censorship for my own personal reasons. However, if I remove a picture depicting a violent act or ask flamers to cool it, I am doing so to create a forum many different people can feel safe to visit, read, and discuss topics in. Further, subject matter should be considered. If my forum is about sex, I wouldn't necessarily remove sexually explicit pictures, but I would if my forum is about quilting and I want my visitors to stick around. I think part of it is that you have to be able to trust the moderator. Is he always going to remove things for his own interest, or is he going to consider the community? John has been pretty laid back so far, and I trust that if he does censor something it will be because it might negatively impact the community. Posted by: Lydia on March 3, 2003 10:56 PM
If rudeness and nogoodniks run unchecked on WebWord, I see no reason to participate in the discussions. Much is ambiguous in this world, but bullies stick out like a sore thumb. If John doesn't stand up for us, WebWord is no longer a fun and productive environment. Posted by: Tim on March 4, 2003 10:24 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |