[Textop] Role-play-game

[Brendel Matyas]

Hi all,


> While perhaps we could use *a* role of arbitrator or
ombudsman, I think that
> Wikipedia's system is broken here.  Frequently, people are
asked to go into
> "arbitration" with people who are simply
unreasonable--which is a waste of
> time for productive users who have been made the target of
ideologues and
> trolls.  I think we need a more efficient and effective
way to identify and
> remove troublemakers.  I'm particularly opposed to a
policy where
> arbitration between individuals is required as a condition
of further
> action.

I see what is your problem. I have been already thinking on
this, I came up with the following ideas:

1) Let the role be "judge" not "arbitrator".  The judge is a
person (or comitee), who decides in disputed questions. He
is a third party, who must not be involved in the question.
He does not have to arbitrate. So judgement can be quick.
The role of the judge has to be separated from
administrators and editors.

2) In real world you would not go to the judge with every
small question. Why? Because there are formal restrictions,
because there is a "filter" before you go to the judge,
ecause you are lazy, and finally, because it costs money. I
was thinking if we could earn with our work some virtual
money, which can be spent on fees of judgement.

This way we could ensure that respected collaborators can
have a fair trial if there is a serious dispute, but obody
would spend money on silly questions jut to make quarell.



Matthias

_______________________________________________________________________________
Megújult az elektronikus piactér! Mp3 lejátszótól a focimezig az [origo]-n!
http://vasarlas.origo.hu/index.vm