Queen Rania launches Ahl El Himmeh initiative »

Three strikes system, Vote now!

By: Qwaider

On:Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:02:42 AM
In:Thoughts
Viewed: (6190) times

Currently 4.7/5 Stars.
1
2
3
4
5

Rated 4.7/5 stars (124 votes cast) Thanks for your vote!

Hey folks...

Recently, a number of people have expressed concern over the quality and type of articles being posted on Jordan Blogs and Qwaider Planet. Therefore, I decided to reach out to the readers and democratically establish some new rules. This is the first one of these

How it works...

Majority wins, as simple as that.
The vote is completely anonymous
Anyone can cast their vote.
ANYONE can host it on their site, if they have any interest in influencing this democratic process

It only takes one request to get included. It will take way more than that to get removed...

So the first item to vote on is:

Three strike system

If a blog is requested to be removed by three members of Jordan Blogs. Should it be removed?

Yes
Require 3 "Jordan blogs" members
2 + issuing 2 warnings
No, once you're on you're on and you will never get off!

So what do you folks think?

(The polling control is in the works, but you can share your ideas now)

Memories....

#1
mohanned
Said
On: 3/10/2009 12:35:00 AM
SpamScore=[-3.5]

This is a thorny issue to say the least. I prefer non-removal, so maybe you can do something like digg but this requires active participation from readers who sometimes just feel too lazy..

#2
anon
Said
On: 3/10/2009 12:43:38 AM
SpamScore=[1]

Require 3 "Jordan blogs" members

#3
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/10/2009 1:17:19 AM
SpamScore=[-39.04]

Mohanned,
That is totally the case. It's pretty thorny and very hard to "fix". But people need to have a say. This is a shared community and therefore we can't "force" certain blogs on people

Anon
I would agree but the problem here is that many "Readers only" will feel like second class citizens in this case and would be fair to everyone.

@All,
Another issue to pay attention to is that some people re-aggregate the posts, which means, they show them on their blogs too. They might want to have a say in WHO gets a referral link from their blog.

#4
Mohanned
Said
On: 3/10/2009 1:29:53 AM
SpamScore=[-3.52]

I don't think that blogposts are shoved in people throats. Before you click you should know what you are getting into. I know this might sound like a sea change coming from me.

I agree that some stuff posted are just boring or plain stupid but this is life, you should be able to deal with what life throws at you so "removing" it is not really solving the issue. I am saying this knowing that you are actually taking time out of your life trying to please everyone, so whatever decision you make it will be welcomed by the members of the planet. Having your blog listed is a privilage not a right, but I still believe that you shouldn't remove.

#5
hamede
Said
On: 3/10/2009 1:34:19 AM
SpamScore=[-2.22]

أعتقد بأن فكرة إنشاء مجموعة من المدونين كمجلس تأديبي هي جيدة حتى يكون فيها عدل، أما ثلاثة فمن السهل أن يتفقوا على واحد ظلماً

#6
whisper
Said
On: 3/10/2009 2:30:31 AM
SpamScore=[0.28]

For me I don't believe any one has the right to say about anybody's blog boring, stupid or any other name
we don't all have the same concerns or interests.

But I'm with putting strikes, to be as a warning or maybe removing the post, but not by removing the whole blog.

#8
Nizar
Said
On: 3/10/2009 5:15:00 AM
SpamScore=[-0.5]

Many people disagree with what I write on my blog and would take the chance to vote me off and thus I don't stand with this system.

Let us just stick to the rules system, you set the rules and we follow them, If we break them the decision is up to you.

#9
Nizar
Said
On: 3/10/2009 5:21:18 AM
SpamScore=[-0.52]

If we all follow this system, we will have a group of people, a majority, leading the Arab blogging sphere, if any conflicting thoughts and opinions are expressed by anybody else he would be easily voted off as I minority.

In this way, there will be no difference between Qwaider and the State National Television, anything that is conflicting or opposing won't get his chance to speak simply because he belongs to a minority.

Our Job as bloggers is to allow people, specially minorities, to send their voices across the internet so they can be heard, and not close the gap for them as most of the other mediums have.

Be fair, think about it.

#10
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/10/2009 6:25:10 AM
SpamScore=[-39.93]

See, placing all the burden on me alone isn't solving this issue, I'm trying to give voice to the readers. They should have a say in this.

I don't know how more fair I can be when I'm sharing such decisions with bloggers and readers.

#11
Nizar
Said
On: 3/10/2009 7:09:25 AM
SpamScore=[-0.54]

You are the administrator of these powerful feed aggregaters and you have a responsibility of making sure that you do not misuse your powers in unfair ways.

Allowing the majority to take over the minority is unfair, and you know that very well, you should be protecting the minorities, what you are doing is allowing 3 wolves to vote on eating the sheep, it is democratic yet unfair.

I, the sheep, have also the right to be part of this community, I haven't broken any rules, and allowing people to vote me off just because I am a minority would be unfair of you to allow it.

Just because I stand against violence, war, uncivilized behaviors and politicization of organized religions in a community were people disagree with my opinions doesn't mean that I have no right to be part of it, think again about it, and be fair.

#12
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/10/2009 8:30:31 AM
SpamScore=[-39.95]

Although I agree that you're a "Kharoof" :) I disagree that people are wolves and "out to get you".
I'm also well aware of how democracy works. There's nothing to suggest that you will be on the chopping board. Whatever happened to your belief in democracy? Now all of a sudden democracy isn't good enough?

Anyway, the issue is still unsettled, I'm waiting to hear from people and see what will result from this

#13
bakkouz
Said
On: 3/10/2009 8:37:18 AM
SpamScore=[0.33]

Censorship? Whats up with that? tsek tsek. I say NO.

First of all ya 3azizi, how can "we" call ourselves advocates of the freedom of speech, and then go around banning people we don't like for whatever reason. such matters should not be left to the public to decide, it is the sole responsibility of the Administrator to handle such matters, If he sees a certain post that is extremely offending, as in child pornography, he can delete if, for the public good. but letting the public loose on each other is not a good idea, it does not work, it creates eleitism and "shilaliyyeh". I've had this experience with digg, I was once a digg power user, and and beleive me, it does not work, not in the case of something like JB, as it did not work on digg. all it does is create favoritism and elitism. and more problems.

taniyan ya 3azizi, lets supose this method does work, even though it wont. but just for the sake of argument say it works, what would prevent a group of people from ganging up on a person and getting his post(s) banned for whatever reason?

#14
Nizar
Said
On: 3/10/2009 8:48:59 AM
SpamScore=[-0.56]

This is democracy, and I believe that democracy is a better method of governing than Sharia for example, but true democratic leaders have some common understanding of what is fair and what isn't, and its done through the voting of the citizens not only three members, and democracy doesn't work like that my friend, democracy works for improving the society for the citizens, not who should we kick out of our society.

This is not a solution, if someone feels that my posts are being shoved down his throat then go work on a proper user to user blocking/ignoring system.

btw, the sheep wolf thing is just symbolic to represent the situation, don't get too exited about me labeling my self a wolf :)

#15
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/10/2009 8:50:46 AM
SpamScore=[-39.97]

Bakkouz
You can't imagine how many people I try to "protect" from their own online "confessions". From dealing and using drugs, to admitting to engaging in illegal activities, not limited to software (and other media) piracy.
See, the reason why I think this would work is that there is no "ganging up" and at the same time, there's no one that has more power than someone else. Including the readers (that's what I hope as well). Also, a person in "question" would have the chance to clarify, rectify, or adjust. This will give a chance for everyone to know what is suitable for the community. And what is not
I never practice censorship unless I really have to(like once a year), but having other readers/bloggers being able to have their say does feel appealing and a little relieving for me. This responsibility is a huge burden my friend. You of all the people would know

#16
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/10/2009 8:58:49 AM
SpamScore=[-39.99]

Nizar,
For the second time, I am fully aware of how democracy work. And this is not a position of comparing between democracy (what I'm proposing) and what we have right now. (Which is only ME trying to be the best I can, when at times I don't feel like being all that good, it's too stressful to say the least, AND it's ME standing between many people and a single blogger who they would rather not see among the list being aggregated. Most of the time, I can’t even cater for the requests of either side. One that is explicit, and the other one implicit as in my role.
Anyway, this is just a proposal, and the three strikes isn't about having only 3 members, but giving three chances.
I also think a poll of a greater number of people would be a better solution. I'm working the technical kinks on such a system, and once it's done I'll demo it in an unobtrusive way for something less dramatic.

But we do need to have bylaws and a say for the community, there's no doubt in my mind that something like this needs to be happening

If the sheep only knew that all that stands between them and the wolves is me...

#17
Ulysses
Said
On: 3/10/2009 9:48:21 AM
SpamScore=[-0.14]

3 is too few I guess, but it can go by issuing a warning and then deleting the blog after 2 warnings. I guess that can be fair.

#18
Nizar
Said
On: 3/10/2009 9:48:37 AM
SpamScore=[0.72]

I have said enough, I am against the majority censoring what the minority has to say, by accepting such policy we are regulating freedom of speech and by that we are loosing quite the whole point of blogging.

You set the rules, we follow them, those that break the rules pay the price and its up to you to decide what to do.

If someone does not wish to see a particular bloggers point of view on the community's feeds, then help them by providing them with a user to user blocking system, and not kicking out those whos opinions are not agrred by the majority.

You know what is right and what is wrong, be fair in making your decissions.

#19
KJ
Said
On: 3/10/2009 10:15:11 AM
SpamScore=[-0.51]

Blog or blog post? There is a difference.

I suggest, like others, that you put your rules. For instance to be a member of this community you should A B C.

Then I also understand you want to include everyone but you are not too keen about some people's posts.

Perhaps then you can filter the aggregator.. you can mass-send people a new rule for instance which states that if the post is deemed inappropriate by your rules (like drug confessions etc) then they can have a tag inserted, say NSFQ, and your aggregator won't get posts with this tag on. So people can have a say on what to put and what not to put... and if they don't abide by your rule then you can issue them warnings etc.

Again, people have a choice on what to read. The more general you establish yourself, the more likely the content you offer will offend someone. So it is also a responsibility on the READER. You're being too hard on yourself here my friend.

#20
bakkouz
Said
On: 3/10/2009 10:26:25 AM
SpamScore=[0.32]

I don't see what the big deal here is, its like KJ said, we live in a free world and everybody has access to anything they want, I realize we live in a "conservative" society and all that, but the matter of the fact is, we as bloggers all are adults here as far as I know, capable of making our own decisions on what to read or not, and setting limitations or deciding what we're allowed or not allowed to read would just open up unneeded doors. either you prohibit a blog entirely from being a part of the aggregator alltogether or allow him to publish freely. as far as the public deciding what they want or not want, it just won't work as I've said, however should this idea come to life, the best way to impliment it would be a digg like system where posts are buried so as not to appear on the front page, this of course requires a bullet proof system and much hard work, and as I've said even at digg the system is still faulty.

So, I say either you moderate it yourself or just let things be. and whoever doesn't like any post or blog, well tough luck, nobody is forcing anybody to read anything they don't like :\

#21
bambam
Said
On: 3/10/2009 11:03:38 AM
SpamScore=[-0.15]

BS ! a majority of 3 in an aggregator of over a 100 ?? a council ? huh ? anonymous voting ?
Hey if someone is going to cast me off just like that they better be able to defend their opinion as something more than a anon. I think (and said) that a lot of the post around are pretty uninteresting in my opinion so i ignore them, why can't they do the same when it comes to the offensive stuff ...
Set some rules and we are supposed to follow you have no reason to protect anyone from their own folly they are the masters of their own decision and they are responsible for the consequences. on the other hand deciding what gets posted will delete some of the more interesting and colorful blogs out of the aggregator and we will quickly end up with a fluff posters only (who would love the mob rule only system you are suggesting) democracy is different than mob rule.

#22
Jano
Said
On: 3/10/2009 3:17:20 PM
SpamScore=[0.81]

I would go with bakkouz but it happens that sometimes, some posts hurt some people. so if that happen and the post was offensive in a way or another and majority of people complained, it can be removed "at least the post NOT to be shown in qwaider planet or jordan blogs" just in case of offensive content. otherwise, we are all matures and suppose to act accordingly.

The blog is one's own world and free to express, but whats shown in Qwaider planet and JB is for all.. so the title can be removed from the list not the whole blog

#23
ميّاسي
Said
On: 3/10/2009 7:11:51 PM
SpamScore=[0.49]

well, this is an open socitey, i should accept any thing published overhere, why the big brother policy?

I am not with such act, every one has the right to judge and choose by him/her self!!!

#24
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/10/2009 7:16:31 PM
SpamScore=[-48.83]

It's very clear that we're never going to agree on anything! I guess people are prefering "It's my way or the highway". Is this better?

#25
Amr Hourani
Said
On: 3/10/2009 10:32:18 PM
SpamScore=[1.48]

A true and clear justification from the "complainant" is quite enough to ban a blogger with collapsing/provocative ideas or even anti-tradition actings..

let's just be more accurate and consistent.. we believe that there are people who poison us with their freaky thinking.. with all due respect to anyone doubts that he/she the sought one!

on the other side, and for me as a person, I dont bother to read the article I dont like, but at the same time I feel burnt for just thinking about how idiot he/she is to believe and write and "DEBATE".. and when I see the dogs around clapping for him/her! .. again, with all due respect! (I have enough containers to spread respect)

sometimes we are blinds.. and sometime non-democracy is a true solution for such people...

welcome to the humanity world!

#26
Marvin
Said
On: 3/10/2009 10:32:37 PM
SpamScore=[-0.46]

Well, crud. My stuff is going to get banned right away! ;-)

If it's your site, you have absolute say over what runs there. The heck with what people think. No one makes them come there and read. Although it would be an interesting trick if you COULD make them come there and read.

I admire your motivation in caring what people think. But that's your first mistake. ;-) It's YOUR way or the highway! To care what people think is to give them reason to whine. No whining!

If you have The Rules Of Conduct posted, and people violate The Rules Of Conduct, then you can push that Delete key and feel good about it. It's your kingdom. If you don't have The Rules Of Conduct posted, you can push the Delete key randomly, and terrorize the populace. That's what I would do. It worked for Stalin, to great effect. ;-))) Nothing gets people to toe the line more quickly than to never be sure where the line actually is.

#27
ميّاسي
Said
On: 3/10/2009 11:45:59 PM
SpamScore=[-0.02]

no no u miss understood me, i did not mean "anything = rubbish",i mean the freedom of speech itself

#28
Hareega
Said
On: 3/11/2009 12:14:23 AM
SpamScore=[-0.29]

There are some very MAJOR problems with this voting:

First, most readers are not bloggers. The audience has a majority of people who never blogged and will never blog, even some blogers are not members of the "Jordan blog" community.

Secondly, the more popular a blog is, the more likely you'll be able to find people who oppose it and wish for it to be closed. You may end up kicking out some really good bloggers out. I bet you I can find 3 people who will vote against Batir Wardam or Nasim Tarawneh just because they don't agree with what's written, but when it comes to a blog like Fifi Mimi Tarifi whatever you won't find anyone voting it out because nobody reads it.

This is not democracy, having only 3 people voting a blog out is not democracy. If you need democracy you should address all readers.

#29
the Mythic mab3oos
Said
On: 3/11/2009 12:25:50 AM
SpamScore=[0.5]

I suggest leaving it as is. As I have already mentioned in many posts, many bloggers on both planets are annoyingly boring. I have to agree with Nizar on this one. A few boring blogs might team up against the one and only mab3oos. therefore, depriving the masses of my goodness. That's not fair at all.
Do you really want Qwaider planet to end up a collection of آفاق علمية?

#30
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/11/2009 12:40:42 AM
SpamScore=[-48.85]

I need to find me a nice corner, and cry

#31
Proud Salti
Said
On: 3/11/2009 12:43:05 AM
SpamScore=[18.87]

Funny how Hareega picked the two most boring blogs to give as an example

#32
Marwan Shakhshir
Said
On: 3/11/2009 12:53:44 AM
SpamScore=[3.87]

Why are you all pissed off at have some rules to fucken regulate the shit that you're shoving down our throats night and day?????????????????
If a blog is fucked up, why can't we have a say in it??
But as they say, everyone thinks the bad stuff is immediately going to happen to him BECAUSE YOU ARE ASSHOLES and BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU WILL GET KICKED OUT if people had a choice

FREEDOM OF CHOICE, isn't that a right? Why can't people have the damn FREEDOM OF CHOICE? You only want your freedom of speech intact! Give us our FREEDOM
I'm Jordanian, and my only connection to Jordan is Jordan Blogs. I only want to read in peace. I have enough assholes here in Atlanta!

#33
the fascinating mab3oos
Said
On: 3/11/2009 3:27:35 AM
SpamScore=[0.5]

marwan,
can you please start a blog just so we can vote you off?

#34
Hareega
Said
On: 3/11/2009 5:55:23 PM
SpamScore=[-0.3]

Qwaider, I really hear you, there are some blogs that are really of very poor quality, all copy and paste material and clips from youtube without any effort from the blogger himself/herself, I just don't think that voting system you suggested was the right one.

#35
The Observer
Said
On: 3/11/2009 7:18:36 PM
SpamScore=[1.38]

Isn't the popularity of a blog enough of a voting? People don't visit a blog if they are not after reading what is the blogger offering. That is what keeps blogs going. If a blogger has no audiance, his blog wouldn't survive. He would eventually get bored and stop.

#36
kinzi
Said
On: 3/11/2009 10:32:59 PM
SpamScore=[0.66]

Heh-heh, blessings on you Q!

#37
Maioush
Said
On: 3/11/2009 11:14:06 PM
SpamScore=[-1.46]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL! OMG fi wa7ad bejeeb waja3 el ras la7alo :) bedak el jama3a hadi te3mal vote?? LOL! ma enta 3arefhom be5telfo m3 7alhom law bese7elom, ma 2allak ella bloggers! LOL jebet waja3 el ras la7alak :D

#38
Whoever
Said
On: 3/12/2009 5:45:40 AM
SpamScore=[1]

Maybe you should start by doing the most basic rule and delete a post featured on ur planet calling our profit a pervert.
Mafeesh 3 people would say no to such insults?!!
Is that freedom??
Yes, Moey is free to worship piercings for all i care but are u OK to promote that on Qwaider planet??
and you people talk about boring blogs!!!

#39
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/12/2009 6:31:06 AM
SpamScore=[-40.03]

I'm sorry, I didn't see such a post
I will get in touch with you privately to help me find any offending posts like that

#40
sozan
Said
On: 3/12/2009 7:47:09 AM
SpamScore=[-0.02]

اسمح الي في هاي قويدر معلش الي فترة ما دخلت البلوج بس في هاي باعتبرها انه تقييد للحريات يعني المدونه هي المساحه التي يعبر فيها الواحد عن رأيه مهما كان احنا مطالبين باحترامها والاختلاف في الآراء هاد اللي بيثري التجمع لو الكل كان يحكي بنفس التون او الطريقه رخ يكون ممل وغير طبيعي وماراح يكون هناك فايده
واللي متضايق من شي ما يفتح البلوج مره ثانيه بسيطه وبتمنى انك ما تمشي يالشي اللي بدك تعمله

#41
Moey
Said
On: 3/13/2009 5:15:03 AM
SpamScore=[-0.56]

My post was about religion and believe, most of the bloggers on Jordan Blogs lack content even, if this whole vote off system is to kick me out, then it is pathetic, like seriously.

specially the person who doesn't even have the guts not to remain anonymous, it is not like I posted porn.

#42
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/13/2009 5:54:01 AM
SpamScore=[-40.1]

Moey, what gave you the impression that anyone was talking about you in anyway? This article was posted almost 3 days ago!

#43
Moey
Said
On: 3/13/2009 6:04:56 AM
SpamScore=[-1.08]

Yeah, and my posts were moved, not according to the warning system :) I don't see my last 2 posts on both aggregators :)

#44
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/13/2009 6:37:32 AM
SpamScore=[-40.08]

Too many people complained that the posts were offensive to a level that I couldn't tolerate, therefore you were removed.
I'm trying to advocate a more democratic way to do such things, but it's hard to get people to agree. So I took action based on the complaints

#45
Moey
Said
On: 3/13/2009 6:51:39 AM
SpamScore=[-1.1]

LOL what a way to judge, thanks :)

#46
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/13/2009 7:45:38 AM
SpamScore=[-40.1]

There's nothing to judge here. People boycotted a whole nation for making fun of Prophet Mohammad. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to know what will happen. Youtube removing the video should have been a hint

#47
Moey
Said
On: 3/13/2009 7:12:41 PM
SpamScore=[-1.12]

LOL. yeah?
Freedom of speech, very UNlimited

#48
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/13/2009 7:21:41 PM
SpamScore=[-34.18]

Why don't you say that to Google?

#49
Moey
Said
On: 3/13/2009 9:26:56 PM
SpamScore=[-0.6]

LOL wtf google have to do with this?

#50
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/13/2009 9:41:17 PM
SpamScore=[-39.26]

Didn't they remove the offensive video? Why are you crying now that I did the same?

#51
Moey
Said
On: 3/14/2009 6:05:37 AM
SpamScore=[-1.14]

LOL, and other users uploaded it, I uploaded it on my server because I don't want to keep editing the embed link and edit the post.

You did what? I don't get you now.

#52
Palforce
Said
On: 3/16/2009 2:35:38 PM
SpamScore=[1.19]

LOL.

Sorry Qwaider for passing the headache to you.

My apologies :-)

#53
Qwaider
Said
On: 3/16/2009 5:01:42 PM
SpamScore=[-40.3]

Yep, people are still reminiscing over JP, and how they had to wait months and kiss people's A*** to only be included. And they STILL had to abide by a million and one rules... But ... Allah yir7am Ayyam JP! Eeeh ... donia ... oo ma bidoom ella wajh allah!
To add insult to injury, NOT A SINGLE BLOGGER, OR READER asked me to put him back! NOT ONE! While 27 others, emailed and expressed their support for the decision!

#54
Ruth
Said
On: 3/24/2009 8:23:17 AM
SpamScore=[2]

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Ruth