The Idea of Chowk

Wow! so now ``chowk staff`` has come back to its senses.
SR`s (#241) suggestions are worth considering.
1. If there has to be a rating than all interactors should start from a common rating of ``unrated``.
2. Writer`s ratings should be kept separate from interactor`s ratings. Several good authors have shown themselves to be poor interactor. Many don`t even interact. Interactor`s rating should be based on peer review and that too based on a minimum quorum. Feedback from twleve-heads can be filtered through some logic.
3. Chowk should list all editorial members of its ``chowk staff``.

Chowk staff, what do you mean by filtered out indefinitely and filtered out forever? In the latter case, Scout has only responded in cases of extreme provocation. Are there different rules for men and women on chowk?
About Sameer, I do not have to tell you what an intelligent contributor he has been. On what grounds has he been filtered out?
Why do this when in the past you did nothing about individuals like Honorable Syed and took such tardy action against a certain multi-nicked individual? Why these double standards that replicate our society`s double standards?

O dear, Oh Dear Me, the scores are all gone... what happened?

Just as I was beginning to bask in the glory of my above mediocre score, it was gone again and all interact responses were again uncategorized.

First, to all those who make noises about democracy, awami raj, and rights on Chowk (or any other website) forget The Golden Rule

The golden Rule, of course, says: He who has the gold, makes the Rules. PERIOD...

Second, the rating idea is a good one in its core, but hard as hell to impliment in a rational and effective manner.

I cannot pretend to have the best solution but here are some ideas that may have been useful to apply.

1) Let the rating system be based on the concept of ``Peer Review``...

2) Let only verified registered users cast a ballot... ie, give a rating score.

3) Start every one with an uncategorized rating or some initial rating based on the editors` initial assessment. So thus many, many will be uncategorized and aome will have an initial score...

4) The starting score does not start changing with the first cast ballot. No. It should have a minimum quorum requirment of, say, ten or 15 ``click`` votes before an aggregate acore appears. Only one registered user could make one click per message.

5) There should be two numbers running before each message. A ``general score`` for the interactor giving his/her overall score as computed by the system at large, and a second, for the particular message, IF that message has been scored by a required number of readers.

This scoring system will be slow to evolve but will reflect the collective prejudices of the general readership somewhat more accurately. The scale should be from ``uncalassified``, to 0 to 10...

Most will remain ``unclassified`` for a long time. That is better than being a zero or -1...

...SR

Re: # 236

``I agree that i could have been more refined in my criticisms...i will try to do in future.``

I believe that`s all Chowk Staff is asking from its interactors.

TEHREEK-I-UNPLUGGISTAAN

faisaluno:
cc. Saima Shah/Safwan Shah!


Thank you.

Some new measures have been taken by the Martial-Law authorities at Front-page but they have still not relinquished power.

The power MUST come through the Public, the awaam, the common-people, the riff-ruff--you & me!

After posting the guide-lines, there are two options left to those who run their business. Either to let the offending/offended interacts battle it out or ignore each other OR the OFFENDER ( like me) must be banned ( The business owner reserves the right NOT to do business with some one). This way at least some risk is taken.

What they cannot do is to ``tolerate`` someone like me, increase traffic at the business site [thus use me] AND at the same time beat me up like the Muttavaas in Saudi Arabia.

If the number & the volubility of certain interactors is a crowd-puller and
thus an advertisement, then it is dishonest to announce such lofty and bombastic a claim as ``unflinching idealism`` .

Baigaani shaadi meiN abdullah deevaana is not bad if it is Abdullah`s decision, but to arrange one`s wedding and insist thet the city`s deevaana Abdullahs be brought to the `show` BUT kept in line, is kind of ``westernism & ``colonialism`` which the Unpluggistaanis, the unadulterated Desis, have spurned and look down upon.

If you think it is a good idea then please copy it and bring it back on top as a refresher & reiminder. Others please do it as well.

P.S: Saima Shah* & Safwan shah are excellent people, but I am extremely stingy in my praise to anyone DEsi because such behaviour has become our national pastime. It has robbed us of our sting and instead the whole society operates on sifaarish, phony-politeness, and perverted networkings.

I do not particularly like to be `lovey-dovey` on an anonymous website which in this day and age of the ``Oppression by Freedom`` is the last refuge left where one CAN ( & allowed by default to) speak one`s mind and heard--even for a flickering second.

Sad, so sad but true.

*: hope you`ll smile a tad!

tehreek-e UnplUggistaan

Re: # 232 by ZahraJ

*** Interactor Filtered Out Indefinitely***

re:#235 by godot
May be you confuse my hatred of some of the ideals that Pakistani rulers espouse (religious extremism, support of jehad in Kashmir etc) with hatred of Pakistanis. There is a difference. Individual attacks on some people on chowk do not constitute an attack on the whole nation. I agree that i could have been more refined in my criticisms on some occasions, which i will try to do in future.
Sridhar

Re: # 233

Sridhar

Yes, those ``ugly`` replies were selective, and contrary to what you say some of them were explicit ``personal`` attacks in a manner not befitting an intelligent being.

Those selective qoutes from your posts tell a reader that you are full of hate against Pakistan and Pakistanis (and anyone who dares to criticize India, perhaps reflecting your insecurity) and you don`t shy away from sinking low in your hatred.

re:#212 by nazarhayatkhan
Thanks for the kind words.
I was no doubt angry but now i am back. I congratulate the Chowk Staff on a good decision (getting rid of the scoring system).
Sridhar

re: Godot`s reply to my post
I am happy the scoring system is out. I am not sure how this filter system is going to work but this again is an unwarranted attempt to modify people`s behavior.
Godot,
You saw fit to post some of my ``ugly`` replies but not the one i talked about. In the other forum about ``Middle Kingdom wallahs``, i had interesting discussion on Buddhism with Kabuliwallah and DM.
Anyway, since the scoring system is out, i feel this discussion is irrelevant.
I hope people do not forget that abuse can be gross or subtle. Both can hurt. I have called some interactors names but this related to the interacts but was never personal. I am proud to say i have never ever abused anybody`s religion or race. I make no secret about the fact that i do not like military dictators. If there are some interactors out there who are offended by this, i would say: tough luck.
Paki is a short version of Pakistani. Why should one be offended by this?
Anyway, Chowk will lose fun if it becomes a newer version of Catholic day school.
Sridhar

[This is from the ``reading options`` to Chowk Admin :) ]

~ Kee Mae`rae Qatl Kae Baa`d...Us Nae... Jafaa Sae Tau`baa

Hayae...
Hayae.......

Hayae Uss Zood Pushaemaa`n Kaa.....Pushae`maaN.Hona. (Simply Beautiful)

This filtering system is utterly hopeless.

The scoring system was good because it put the interactors in his/her place without infringing upon their right to say whatever they wanted to say and in whichever manner. The intelligent interactors would have gotten the message and had made sure that their posts are written intelligently so they don’t score low. Those who are not very bright would have been stuck with a low score. It’s all in “how” one says it. Decency scores high, foul-mouthed and idiocy scores low. It’s simple as that. Neither is prevented from posting as their heart desire. Intelligent people abhor low scores. Hence, the good weeds out the bad.

The scoring system would have forced interactors to be more thoughtful when posting.
The Chowk filter makes no sense when it passes a “chutya” (#204)

Re: # 226

*** Interactor Filtered Out Indefinitely***

*** Interactor Filtered Out Indefinitely***

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts