The Idea of Chowk
Godot January 24, 2005
#210 Posted by rsridhar on January 27, 2005 3:30:36 pm
re: the scoring system
I am quite fed up with Chowk, so this may be my last post ever here. I feel sad after being here for more than 2 years and having posted more than 2000 posts.
``If an interactor is constantly at 0 or 1 (or worse, at –1), we can safely conclude that that interactor has nothing of value to say.``
I am saying that the scoring system is biased. You can go to my posts in the forum ``The middle kingdom wallahs`` and tell me if ihave nothing to say in the posts there. Even Dost Mittar agreed that the scores of 1 that i and another interactor got was unwarranted.
So, it seems scoring system has been brought in mainly to make some people bad. I see that rats like Romair, Urstruly (a hindu hater) are getting good scores.
Chowk has just gotten rotten now. I am not surprised so may good interactors have already left. This place is now only infested with rats.
So long, then.
Keep up this tamasha and let us see how long this forum lasts.
Sridhar
I am quite fed up with Chowk, so this may be my last post ever here. I feel sad after being here for more than 2 years and having posted more than 2000 posts.
``If an interactor is constantly at 0 or 1 (or worse, at –1), we can safely conclude that that interactor has nothing of value to say.``
I am saying that the scoring system is biased. You can go to my posts in the forum ``The middle kingdom wallahs`` and tell me if ihave nothing to say in the posts there. Even Dost Mittar agreed that the scores of 1 that i and another interactor got was unwarranted.
So, it seems scoring system has been brought in mainly to make some people bad. I see that rats like Romair, Urstruly (a hindu hater) are getting good scores.
Chowk has just gotten rotten now. I am not surprised so may good interactors have already left. This place is now only infested with rats.
So long, then.
Keep up this tamasha and let us see how long this forum lasts.
Sridhar
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#209 Posted by scout on January 27, 2005 4:41:50 am
i miss the simple old chowk, please get rid of all the changes, including the unplugged section and return to the format and formula before, you`re going to detract new visitors because of this confusion
the best websites on the internet are the simple, user friendly ones
the best websites on the internet are the simple, user friendly ones
#207 Posted by twintopaz on January 26, 2005 9:59:24 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#206 Posted by Humsab on January 26, 2005 8:36:57 pm
SameerJB ji
Nice to see you back.
SameerJB SameerJB
where have u been
you went to heaven
to look at all the asinines ?
Regards
Nice to see you back.
SameerJB SameerJB
where have u been
you went to heaven
to look at all the asinines ?
Regards
#205 Posted by rahul_capri on January 26, 2005 7:00:15 pm
Re: # 202
viz a viz your post-
1.
Prisoners and detainees are not held because they are `unsuitable` people. They are there because of the retributive elements of their actions. Afterall, they do get out and mingle within society while being `unsuitable`.
Saima`s point still remains that people are quarantined in real world.This happens in social unions as well, maybe less explicitly.The basis may be retribution or anything else.
This does not follow necesarily that chowk should be that way, and I will come to that later.
There are convicted sex offenders whose rights to be anonymous are being championed by civil rights organization. kaka is championing the rights of arjun and echoboom in the same way. ESPECIALLY, SINCE NOW YOU CAN USE `IGNORE` AND ` THRESHOLD` BUTTONS TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF YOUR COMPUTER SANCTIFIED.
This analogy cannot stand by itself because their is one additional parameter, the objective of chowk. The rights of arjuns and echobooms should not interfere with objective of chowk and how chowk sees itself. We cant assume that there is no objective of chowk.
2. Do not put too much hope in the efforts of `tax-collectors` such as the government etc to make good use of your tax-dollars and wishes. There is the Patriot Act and a sleuth of irelevant and harmful measures taken up by governments on your behalf. You need to be less trustful and demand more accountibility. Refer to post 169 to know what is at stake here.
I agree that the government`s role is debatable and besides the analogy to non cyber(i am refraining from the word real) world can only work to a certain extent.
3. You share cyberspace and indeed chowk.com with several people. Jostling with the `ignore` and `threshold` buttons will enable you to customize your view of reality as far as chowk is concerned. Empower yourself on your profile page without having to appeal to authority to ban certain interactor or remove certain posts.
4. You can create a parallel civilization for the positive sides of chowkies by going to your profile page. Nobody should leave just because arjun is insulting Mohammad and echoboom is typing angry invectives against Muslim atheists like kaka. Just type the words `arjun` and `echoboom` in the ignore space and watch their bakbak poof away.
5. You can maintain that `critical balance` by taking a chance on some interactors and letting them froth while putting others on the `ignore` cruise mood or whatever. Others shouls also have the right to keep their own `critical balances` by toggling with profile pages. The point is, there doesn`t need to be a comprehensice chowk control about it.
The threshold system depends largely on the felicity of chowk staff of rating interactors. So the god like shadow of chowk staff is always there. Chowk staff have made a very stupid beginning by rating interactors based on the articles submitted. If I had written a few articles on my pre pubescent love affair with a bespectacled girl and chowk would have published them(which is not a long shot), I would be having an interactor rating of five . Interactor rating is more of a subjective and debatable activity than screening posts containing expletives and personal attacks. The default threshold rating which lurkers see also depends on this. Currently you are rated at 1 and the lurkers would probably see all your posts.
As per the ignore button and the interactor rating as well, one can get into practical problems in a three way discussion where there is no data transfer among all the three sides of the triangle.So, this system is not as perfect as it looks.
6. Chowk does not have to be a mirror for everyone. It could be a plyground for others too.
Agreed.But chowk has to decide what it is.It cant be everything to everybody, though it may try to be.If it wants to be a playground for some, it is sure to scare off the diverse variety of people that it attracts.When it is a free for all, everyone is bound to cuss and swear from time to time.I have a feeling it will go towards having more bohemian rhapsodic people discussing some abstract issues, who are beyond any sense of id or ego and the normal people who want to discuss more mundane things like the h in shalwar would fall by the wayside.
7. The question is, do you want to work towards an ideal which limits Freedom of Expression? Do you want to work towards a Draconian ideal or an Islamic Ideal or whatever ideal? Sure the ideal probably cannot be achieved, but if you are looking for a homogenized, monolithic that everyone has to subscribe to, then kaka is going to keep writing against that ideal.
Again I support your right to write and fight and cuss(and you do not have to explain your urge,I also have that from time to time), but instead of such big ideals and big words, I think just posts using cuss words directred towards an interactor should be screened, and this is the most sensible way of attracting people from most diverse backgrounds and standings on the bohemian scale. The example is unplugged.You can easily guess what percentage of people visiting front page go to unplugged.If you call this homogenized,monolitic, maybe it is so.But it is sure to attract more different people as far as I can see. Finally, it all boils down to what chowk wants to see itelf as.Personally, I am all for insulting such figures, who are revered to such an extent that everything that they have uttered are taken to be true and immutable. Popes, prophets,saints.But I know that not many people will be able to debate anything here then.
Again, what chowk wishes to see itself as.
viz a viz your post-
1.
Prisoners and detainees are not held because they are `unsuitable` people. They are there because of the retributive elements of their actions. Afterall, they do get out and mingle within society while being `unsuitable`.
Saima`s point still remains that people are quarantined in real world.This happens in social unions as well, maybe less explicitly.The basis may be retribution or anything else.
This does not follow necesarily that chowk should be that way, and I will come to that later.
There are convicted sex offenders whose rights to be anonymous are being championed by civil rights organization. kaka is championing the rights of arjun and echoboom in the same way. ESPECIALLY, SINCE NOW YOU CAN USE `IGNORE` AND ` THRESHOLD` BUTTONS TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF YOUR COMPUTER SANCTIFIED.
This analogy cannot stand by itself because their is one additional parameter, the objective of chowk. The rights of arjuns and echobooms should not interfere with objective of chowk and how chowk sees itself. We cant assume that there is no objective of chowk.
2. Do not put too much hope in the efforts of `tax-collectors` such as the government etc to make good use of your tax-dollars and wishes. There is the Patriot Act and a sleuth of irelevant and harmful measures taken up by governments on your behalf. You need to be less trustful and demand more accountibility. Refer to post 169 to know what is at stake here.
I agree that the government`s role is debatable and besides the analogy to non cyber(i am refraining from the word real) world can only work to a certain extent.
3. You share cyberspace and indeed chowk.com with several people. Jostling with the `ignore` and `threshold` buttons will enable you to customize your view of reality as far as chowk is concerned. Empower yourself on your profile page without having to appeal to authority to ban certain interactor or remove certain posts.
4. You can create a parallel civilization for the positive sides of chowkies by going to your profile page. Nobody should leave just because arjun is insulting Mohammad and echoboom is typing angry invectives against Muslim atheists like kaka. Just type the words `arjun` and `echoboom` in the ignore space and watch their bakbak poof away.
5. You can maintain that `critical balance` by taking a chance on some interactors and letting them froth while putting others on the `ignore` cruise mood or whatever. Others shouls also have the right to keep their own `critical balances` by toggling with profile pages. The point is, there doesn`t need to be a comprehensice chowk control about it.
The threshold system depends largely on the felicity of chowk staff of rating interactors. So the god like shadow of chowk staff is always there. Chowk staff have made a very stupid beginning by rating interactors based on the articles submitted. If I had written a few articles on my pre pubescent love affair with a bespectacled girl and chowk would have published them(which is not a long shot), I would be having an interactor rating of five . Interactor rating is more of a subjective and debatable activity than screening posts containing expletives and personal attacks. The default threshold rating which lurkers see also depends on this. Currently you are rated at 1 and the lurkers would probably see all your posts.
As per the ignore button and the interactor rating as well, one can get into practical problems in a three way discussion where there is no data transfer among all the three sides of the triangle.So, this system is not as perfect as it looks.
6. Chowk does not have to be a mirror for everyone. It could be a plyground for others too.
Agreed.But chowk has to decide what it is.It cant be everything to everybody, though it may try to be.If it wants to be a playground for some, it is sure to scare off the diverse variety of people that it attracts.When it is a free for all, everyone is bound to cuss and swear from time to time.I have a feeling it will go towards having more bohemian rhapsodic people discussing some abstract issues, who are beyond any sense of id or ego and the normal people who want to discuss more mundane things like the h in shalwar would fall by the wayside.
7. The question is, do you want to work towards an ideal which limits Freedom of Expression? Do you want to work towards a Draconian ideal or an Islamic Ideal or whatever ideal? Sure the ideal probably cannot be achieved, but if you are looking for a homogenized, monolithic that everyone has to subscribe to, then kaka is going to keep writing against that ideal.
Again I support your right to write and fight and cuss(and you do not have to explain your urge,I also have that from time to time), but instead of such big ideals and big words, I think just posts using cuss words directred towards an interactor should be screened, and this is the most sensible way of attracting people from most diverse backgrounds and standings on the bohemian scale. The example is unplugged.You can easily guess what percentage of people visiting front page go to unplugged.If you call this homogenized,monolitic, maybe it is so.But it is sure to attract more different people as far as I can see. Finally, it all boils down to what chowk wants to see itelf as.Personally, I am all for insulting such figures, who are revered to such an extent that everything that they have uttered are taken to be true and immutable. Popes, prophets,saints.But I know that not many people will be able to debate anything here then.
Again, what chowk wishes to see itself as.
#204 Posted by hamzaad on January 26, 2005 4:04:31 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#203 Posted by Godot on January 26, 2005 3:21:14 pm
Re: # 200
Saima
1 Prisons and detention centers are for the criminals not for those who hurl abusive language.
2 The real world has not been successful in preventing rapes, murders and genocide. Those are the real culprits in an uncivilized world. Abusive language does not even figure in the agenda of the institutions you cited.
3 A world where everyone is caring, well-behaved, civilized, intelligent, thoughtful, and well-read is a world beyond reality. Even in a “civilized” world not every single individual is bestowed with those characteristics.
4 Chowk, just as any self-respecting society or community, needs to set rules of conduct for its interactors, which it most certainly did in its guidelines. My take in this article is that it’s fine to screen and reject posts but not to ban interactors. I liked the idea of letting everyone have his/her say but score the interactor. If an interactor is constantly at 0 or 1 (or worse, at –1), we can safely conclude that that interactor has nothing of value to say. The real world is full of folks like that. If the Chowk interactor does not mind being in the rut with a very low score that reflects his/her inner being, then that’s fine too. It’s his/her prerogative. Others would just laugh, curl their lips in disgust, and move on. The smart ones won’t read or respond to a 0 or a 1. The point is, just like the reader who is empowered to choose which posts to read or not to read, an interactor is also empowered to say whatever he/she wants to say. No intelligent person has ever suggested banning Howard Stern, but we all know how much he is respected and paid attention to as compared to, lets say, Jim Lehrer. In the real world both exist side by side. Lehrer is happy with his dignity, Stern is happy with his stink. That’s the natural world order.
5 The problem is who decides that “critical balance”? Who’s watching the police? What’s the guarantee that the police responsible for maintaining the “critical balance” is impeccably neutral and objective? [Scoring an interactor has the same issue but is perhaps less biased than rejecting a post or banning a person.]
6 If Chowk is going to be a true mirror then it must reflect the reality of those who interact at Chowk.
Chowk will not lose authenticity by becoming civilized. The scoring system is driving towards that goal without infringing on the right of the interactor to say with complete freedom as to “how” the interactor chooses to say it. If “good” people want to leave Chowk because of the “negativity” the freedon would bring, then they should do that because they are paying too much attention to 0s and 1s. In that case, Chowk is not the only problem they have. They have major issue with the real world they inhabit.
Saima
1 Prisons and detention centers are for the criminals not for those who hurl abusive language.
2 The real world has not been successful in preventing rapes, murders and genocide. Those are the real culprits in an uncivilized world. Abusive language does not even figure in the agenda of the institutions you cited.
3 A world where everyone is caring, well-behaved, civilized, intelligent, thoughtful, and well-read is a world beyond reality. Even in a “civilized” world not every single individual is bestowed with those characteristics.
4 Chowk, just as any self-respecting society or community, needs to set rules of conduct for its interactors, which it most certainly did in its guidelines. My take in this article is that it’s fine to screen and reject posts but not to ban interactors. I liked the idea of letting everyone have his/her say but score the interactor. If an interactor is constantly at 0 or 1 (or worse, at –1), we can safely conclude that that interactor has nothing of value to say. The real world is full of folks like that. If the Chowk interactor does not mind being in the rut with a very low score that reflects his/her inner being, then that’s fine too. It’s his/her prerogative. Others would just laugh, curl their lips in disgust, and move on. The smart ones won’t read or respond to a 0 or a 1. The point is, just like the reader who is empowered to choose which posts to read or not to read, an interactor is also empowered to say whatever he/she wants to say. No intelligent person has ever suggested banning Howard Stern, but we all know how much he is respected and paid attention to as compared to, lets say, Jim Lehrer. In the real world both exist side by side. Lehrer is happy with his dignity, Stern is happy with his stink. That’s the natural world order.
5 The problem is who decides that “critical balance”? Who’s watching the police? What’s the guarantee that the police responsible for maintaining the “critical balance” is impeccably neutral and objective? [Scoring an interactor has the same issue but is perhaps less biased than rejecting a post or banning a person.]
6 If Chowk is going to be a true mirror then it must reflect the reality of those who interact at Chowk.
Chowk will not lose authenticity by becoming civilized. The scoring system is driving towards that goal without infringing on the right of the interactor to say with complete freedom as to “how” the interactor chooses to say it. If “good” people want to leave Chowk because of the “negativity” the freedon would bring, then they should do that because they are paying too much attention to 0s and 1s. In that case, Chowk is not the only problem they have. They have major issue with the real world they inhabit.
#202 Posted by hamzaad on January 26, 2005 2:07:14 pm
`#200 by SaimaShah on January 26, 2005 12:52pm PT Score=4
1. The real world has a structure where unsuitable people are banned from ordinary interaction with others. Prisons and detention centers are created to keep society safe.
2. The real world is constantly being adjusted by Government, Society and Associations, to be a more fulfilling place for all of humanity. UNO, UNICEF, Charitable associations, medical doctors, newspapers, religious institutions and myraid other places contribute to this grand ideal.
3. Is the nebulous ideal of civilization as an ideal good? I believe Yes... and that I`d love to go into with you over a cup of coffee--perhaps several would be needed. In a nutshell we the people need civilization to survive.
4. Civilization with some of its contraints or actually `standards` is what Chowk needs to survive. Otherwise it will not be a safe place for people to exist as a community because it is too biased towards the negative side of humans.
5. A critical balance needs to be maintained, between throat strangling civility/suppression on the one hand and freedom.
6. Chowk is a mirror. Yes. But its reflection is powerful too.
Now the other concern that I felt you had in the sub-text..
Will Chowk lose authenticity by becoming civilized?
7. Since 1 is an ideal, it is never achieved, it is a constant process, and human nature will always fight it, I am not afraid that Chowk will become a less authentic place--there is a healthy mix of the bold and the outrageous.`
1. Prisoners and detainees are not held because they are `unsuitable` people. They are there because of the retributive elements of their actions. Afterall, they do get out and mingle within society while being `unsuitable`.
There are convicted sex offenders whose rights to be anonymous are being championed by civil rights organization. kaka is championing the rights of arjun and echoboom in the same way. ESPECIALLY, SINCE NOW YOU CAN USE `IGNORE` AND ` THRESHOLD` BUTTONS TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF YOUR COMPUTER SANCTIFIED.
2. Do not put too much hope in the efforts of `tax-collectors` such as the government etc to make good use of your tax-dollars and wishes. There is the Patriot Act and a sleuth of irelevant and harmful measures taken up by governments on your behalf. You need to be less trustful and demand more accountibility. Refer to post 169 to know what is at stake here.
3. You share cyberspace and indeed chowk.com with several people. Jostling with the `ignore` and `threshold` buttons will enable you to customize your view of reality as far as chowk is concerned. Empower yourself on your profile page without having to appeal to authority to ban certain interactor or remove certain posts.
4. You can create a parallel civilization for the positive sides of chowkies by going to your profile page. Nobody should leave just because arjun is insulting Mohammad and echoboom is typing angry invectives against Muslim atheists like kaka. Just type the words `arjun` and `echoboom` in the ignore space and watch their bakbak poof away.
5. You can maintain that `critical balance` by taking a chance on some interactors and letting them froth while putting others on the `ignore` cruise mood or whatever. Others shouls also have the right to keep their own `critical balances` by toggling with profile pages. The point is, there doesn`t need to be a comprehensice chowk control about it.
6. Chowk does not have to be a mirror for everyone. It could be a plyground for others too.
7. The question is, do you want to work towards an ideal which limits Freedom of Expression? Do you want to work towards a Draconian ideal or an Islamic Ideal or whatever ideal? Sure the ideal probably cannot be achieved, but if you are looking for a homogenized, monolithic that everyone has to subscribe to, then kaka is going to keep writing against that ideal.
1. The real world has a structure where unsuitable people are banned from ordinary interaction with others. Prisons and detention centers are created to keep society safe.
2. The real world is constantly being adjusted by Government, Society and Associations, to be a more fulfilling place for all of humanity. UNO, UNICEF, Charitable associations, medical doctors, newspapers, religious institutions and myraid other places contribute to this grand ideal.
3. Is the nebulous ideal of civilization as an ideal good? I believe Yes... and that I`d love to go into with you over a cup of coffee--perhaps several would be needed. In a nutshell we the people need civilization to survive.
4. Civilization with some of its contraints or actually `standards` is what Chowk needs to survive. Otherwise it will not be a safe place for people to exist as a community because it is too biased towards the negative side of humans.
5. A critical balance needs to be maintained, between throat strangling civility/suppression on the one hand and freedom.
6. Chowk is a mirror. Yes. But its reflection is powerful too.
Now the other concern that I felt you had in the sub-text..
Will Chowk lose authenticity by becoming civilized?
7. Since 1 is an ideal, it is never achieved, it is a constant process, and human nature will always fight it, I am not afraid that Chowk will become a less authentic place--there is a healthy mix of the bold and the outrageous.`
1. Prisoners and detainees are not held because they are `unsuitable` people. They are there because of the retributive elements of their actions. Afterall, they do get out and mingle within society while being `unsuitable`.
There are convicted sex offenders whose rights to be anonymous are being championed by civil rights organization. kaka is championing the rights of arjun and echoboom in the same way. ESPECIALLY, SINCE NOW YOU CAN USE `IGNORE` AND ` THRESHOLD` BUTTONS TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF YOUR COMPUTER SANCTIFIED.
2. Do not put too much hope in the efforts of `tax-collectors` such as the government etc to make good use of your tax-dollars and wishes. There is the Patriot Act and a sleuth of irelevant and harmful measures taken up by governments on your behalf. You need to be less trustful and demand more accountibility. Refer to post 169 to know what is at stake here.
3. You share cyberspace and indeed chowk.com with several people. Jostling with the `ignore` and `threshold` buttons will enable you to customize your view of reality as far as chowk is concerned. Empower yourself on your profile page without having to appeal to authority to ban certain interactor or remove certain posts.
4. You can create a parallel civilization for the positive sides of chowkies by going to your profile page. Nobody should leave just because arjun is insulting Mohammad and echoboom is typing angry invectives against Muslim atheists like kaka. Just type the words `arjun` and `echoboom` in the ignore space and watch their bakbak poof away.
5. You can maintain that `critical balance` by taking a chance on some interactors and letting them froth while putting others on the `ignore` cruise mood or whatever. Others shouls also have the right to keep their own `critical balances` by toggling with profile pages. The point is, there doesn`t need to be a comprehensice chowk control about it.
6. Chowk does not have to be a mirror for everyone. It could be a plyground for others too.
7. The question is, do you want to work towards an ideal which limits Freedom of Expression? Do you want to work towards a Draconian ideal or an Islamic Ideal or whatever ideal? Sure the ideal probably cannot be achieved, but if you are looking for a homogenized, monolithic that everyone has to subscribe to, then kaka is going to keep writing against that ideal.
#201 Posted by arjun_m on January 26, 2005 1:41:55 pm
Stop whining about the rating system. It`s been used successfully on slashdot...and slashdot has a thousand times as many users as chowk...and 10K times as many whiners..
And people complaining about their ``freedom of speech`` being violated, you don`t know what you`re talking about....
And people complaining about their ``freedom of speech`` being violated, you don`t know what you`re talking about....
#200 Posted by SaimaShah on January 26, 2005 12:52:04 pm
Wow.
Very thought provoking. After seven years at Chowk, I have a few thoughts on these issues.
1. The real world has a structure where unsuitable people are banned from ordinary interaction with others. Prisons and detention centers are created to keep society safe.
2. The real world is constantly being adjusted by Government, Society and Associations, to be a more fulfilling place for all of humanity. UNO, UNICEF, Charitable associations, medical doctors, newspapers, religious institutions and myraid other places contribute to this grand ideal.
3. Is the nebulous ideal of civilization as an ideal good? I believe Yes... and that I`d love to go into with you over a cup of coffee--perhaps several would be needed. In a nutshell we the people need civilization to survive.
4. Civilization with some of its contraints or actually `standards` is what Chowk needs to survive. Otherwise it will not be a safe place for people to exist as a community because it is too biased towards the negative side of humans.
5. A critical balance needs to be maintained, between throat strangling civility/suppression on the one hand and freedom.
6. Chowk is a mirror. Yes. But its reflection is powerful too.
Now the other concern that I felt you had in the sub-text..
1. Will Chowk lose authenticity by becoming civilized?
A. Since 1 is an ideal, it is never achieved, it is a constant process, and human nature will always fight it, I am not afraid that Chowk will become a less authentic place--there is a healthy mix of the bold and the outrageous.
Very thought provoking. After seven years at Chowk, I have a few thoughts on these issues.
1. The real world has a structure where unsuitable people are banned from ordinary interaction with others. Prisons and detention centers are created to keep society safe.
2. The real world is constantly being adjusted by Government, Society and Associations, to be a more fulfilling place for all of humanity. UNO, UNICEF, Charitable associations, medical doctors, newspapers, religious institutions and myraid other places contribute to this grand ideal.
3. Is the nebulous ideal of civilization as an ideal good? I believe Yes... and that I`d love to go into with you over a cup of coffee--perhaps several would be needed. In a nutshell we the people need civilization to survive.
4. Civilization with some of its contraints or actually `standards` is what Chowk needs to survive. Otherwise it will not be a safe place for people to exist as a community because it is too biased towards the negative side of humans.
5. A critical balance needs to be maintained, between throat strangling civility/suppression on the one hand and freedom.
6. Chowk is a mirror. Yes. But its reflection is powerful too.
Now the other concern that I felt you had in the sub-text..
1. Will Chowk lose authenticity by becoming civilized?
A. Since 1 is an ideal, it is never achieved, it is a constant process, and human nature will always fight it, I am not afraid that Chowk will become a less authentic place--there is a healthy mix of the bold and the outrageous.
#199 Posted by soysauce on January 26, 2005 8:46:38 am
If you want a metric, you could count & display the number of times any response was viewed.
It would be like -
veeresh (155) read--omar_quereshi (53) read-- veeresh (20)read
tahmed32 (39) read-- veeresh (15) read-- tahmed32 (8)read
soysauce(3) read-- harimau(3) read-- soysauce(3) read-- harimau(3)read--, etc.
The bold parts are the links that allow you to read the response in the current window or a new, popup window.
You get the idea.
It would be like -
veeresh (155) read--omar_quereshi (53) read-- veeresh (20)read
tahmed32 (39) read-- veeresh (15) read-- tahmed32 (8)read
soysauce(3) read-- harimau(3) read-- soysauce(3) read-- harimau(3)read--, etc.
The bold parts are the links that allow you to read the response in the current window or a new, popup window.
You get the idea.
#198 Posted by Freddy_Krueger on January 26, 2005 8:43:52 am
..hehe.......echoboom got hit by a bolt of lightening from a representative of ba ba black sheep herd....now put a balm on the wounds made from the translation of Iqbal`s poetry, however the translation of Noon Meem Rashid`s random mix of short and long lines would be more soothing and possibly rewarding in the future......
abey oh ehmaq, aqal say paidal insaan
maghrib ki karamaat ki qadar pehchan
nehmat darazi-e-umr ammi-o-abba jan
nahi ba taur-e-wajdan-o-hadis-o-quran
bunyadon mein khirad kay qadar daan
azad khyali-e-falsafian-o-tehqeeq daan
kyun nadani peh makhmoor aye nadan
chal phoot ja kha sada ilachi wala paan
#197 Posted by soysauce on January 26, 2005 8:38:45 am
Oh and, there`s no longer any need for the preview panel under the new system. It also screws up author attribution.
#196 Posted by soysauce on January 26, 2005 8:36:44 am
chowk-staff,
I`m a cheerleader for your new system. I also agree that you have to start somewhere as far as scoring interactors goes. However, may I suggest that a good starting point is one where everyone starts out at the same point and evolve from there?
Another option would be where you show the names of the posters only without displaying the contents. A link on the side would then take you to the contents associated with that particular interactor. This would be as if we set the threshold at level=5 except that you don`t have to change anything globally to see what any particular individual has said. The advantage of this method is it would be self-governing with no human intervention, no moderation and no formulas. What do you think?
A more elaborate system would thread the interactions but that might be a huge undertaking for an established site like this one. Blog sites automatically incorporate threading feature.
I`m a cheerleader for your new system. I also agree that you have to start somewhere as far as scoring interactors goes. However, may I suggest that a good starting point is one where everyone starts out at the same point and evolve from there?
Another option would be where you show the names of the posters only without displaying the contents. A link on the side would then take you to the contents associated with that particular interactor. This would be as if we set the threshold at level=5 except that you don`t have to change anything globally to see what any particular individual has said. The advantage of this method is it would be self-governing with no human intervention, no moderation and no formulas. What do you think?
A more elaborate system would thread the interactions but that might be a huge undertaking for an established site like this one. Blog sites automatically incorporate threading feature.
#195 Posted by echoboom on January 25, 2005 8:27:44 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- sadna: majumdar You have to explain... Living Gandhi and King
- harish_hyd: #186 by majumdar Pakistan of... Living Gandhi and King
- sadna: What Mantolives is explaining... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Majumdar, These arguments by sadna... Living Gandhi and King
- majumdar: Sadna, Why did MKG have... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: PS: Sadna's deliberate dishonesty... Living Gandhi and King
- majumdar: Harishbhai, Re: 184 How? Pakistan of... Living Gandhi and King
- sadna: majumdar Jinnah would have had... Living Gandhi and King
